Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (FELIXSTOWE) BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

British Rail (Transport Policy Submissions)

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish all the papers submitted to his Department by the British Railways Board prior to the publication of the consultation document on transport.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): No, Sir. It will be for the board to decide how much it wishes to publish of the information it submits in its response to the consultation document.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister agree that the long-suffering commuter is entitled to know rather more about the plans of British Rail to improve its efficiency?

Mr. Shore: I hope that it will be possible for the commuter and for all of us to know of the plans, proposals and thoughts of British Rail, but we have only recently published the consultation document. I hope very much that I shall soon have the opportunity of discussing it with the British Railways Board.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are not prepared to see commuters discriminated against? Will he confirm that the Government's policy document says that there is considerable scope for better productivity and manpower savings? Does he agree that a policy that raised fares but did not tackle the question of efficiency would be totally unacceptable?

Mr. Shore: I am certain that increased efficiency is one of the factors that come into the whole equation of costs and subsidies affecting rail services, but it would be wrong for us to isolate one element. We must look at the whole matter in context. That is what the document has done. It will enable a more rational discussion to take place.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while commuters are not discriminated against, since they are merely asked—as Conservative Members often ask—to pay their way, the commuter services into the cities are very important? They are socially necessary in order to prevent congestion and pollution in the cities.

Mr. Shore: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the services into London and other major urban centres particularly are essential on social and environmental grounds. It is inconceivable that there could be any serious substitute for them. Therefore, what has been proposed is not any savage reduction in those services but rather the recognition that they are, unhappily, high-cost services and that we must look very carefully at the present relationship between subsidy and charges.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I warmly welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about commuter services and urban areas, but will he comment on the report in this morning's Daily Telegraph that the Government have approached British Rail and that there are strong possibilities of swingeing cuts not only in the commuter services but in the very thin rail network in the rural areas?

Mr. Shore: I read that account with some surprise. I have issued no instructions to British Rail, and I have no proposals for closure under consideration. Whether there are proposals for them, or


whether options have reached the British Railways Board, I cannot say.

Mr. Moate: Do we take the Minister's original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to mean that he intends to publish considerably more information about British Rail finances—particularly with regard to individual commuter lines, as promised by the Minister for Transport some time ago—and British Rail's intentions?

Mr. Shore: We had better wait until we see how the consultations go. I have no fixed view on the matter, but it is my intention to give the House and the public as much information as possible, to help them as well as us to come to reasonable conclusions about what options are available.

Mr. Dempsey: When my right hon. Friend discusses the matter with the British Railways Board, will he draw its attention to the fact that inordinate fare increases in Scotland will result in savage cuts, loss of employment and the diminution of services essential to maintain productivity in that part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore: I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties, but I do not envisage savage cuts. Therefore, the dire consequences which he predicts for Scotland are hypothetical and, I hope, unreal.

Council Housing

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what survey has been made of council housing left vacant because of administrative and other delays.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The Department's annual relets survey collects information about council housing revenue account dwellings which are vacant and available for letting at the end of each year and those undergoing modernisation, repairs or conversion.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the figure for empty council houses still 56,000, and does it include short-life properties? Is the percentage on GLC estates in Essex still 2 per cent., as stated last year? Whatever the precise figures are, do they not argue that what is needed is not

requisitioning powers but a proper survey and occupation of council property?

Mr. Armstrong: About half of 1 per cent. of local authority housing revenue account dwellings were vacant at our last inquiry and just under three-quarters of 1 per cent. were vacant for modernisation, repair or conversion. The figures that I gave the hon. Member in previous answers are about the percentage at present.

Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that in Liverpool the situation in respect of empty council dwellings has now reached scandalous proportions, and that in my constituency and other places there is a great deal of squatting going on, which will greatly increase if this sort of thing continues? People will simply not accept that they should be homeless while properties are empty.

Mr. Heffer: Under the Liberals.

Mr. Loyden: Yes, under the Liberals.

Mr. Armstrong: Any dwellings that remain empty longer than necessary are of great concern and are contributing to housing stress, so we are concerned about the situation. It varies from place to place, but the picture for local authority housing is that local housing authorities are very eager to use their stock to the best advantage. If my hon. Friend has any particular examples in mind, we shall do our best to help.

Mr. Rossi: May I go back to the original Question and press the Minister to say whether short-life properties awaiting redevelopment are included in the official figure of 56,000 empty council houses under the annual relet survey—yes or no? In view of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the scandalous number of empty properties, will the Minister oppose requisitioning powers while thousands of council properties remain empty—[Interruption]—and instead ensure that a proper survey of every empty council property, in whatever condition, is made, with reasons given by local councils why they are empty?

Mr. Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are letting questions run amok again. Hon. Members—this applies to both sides—are


making speeches. I hope that all hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Mr. Armstrong: The collection of information is a great concern of ours, but that is not an answer to all the problems. We believe that local authorities know their own circumstances best. We are not anxious to dictate to them how they should allocate their stock.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister accept that one answer to the problem of short-life houses is to pass them on to housing associations, which can do them up far more cheaply than local authorities and which should be encouraged to do just that in places like Liverpool?

Mr. Armstrong: Our experience in the country is that, under our municipalisation programme, authorities are buying property that is below standard, improving it and improving the general housing condition of their tenants.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend not agree that although some authorities, like Liverpool, may be inefficient, in many cases these delays are caused by councils giving tenants a real choice in the properties available? Should he not therefore turn his attention to dealing with large empty houses, such as, for instance, the one at Totteridge, connected with the Pricerite chain?

Mr. Armstrong: The second part of that question is due for answer later in today's Question Time. It is true that extra choice is being given, and many of the houses that are empty are empty for good reasons.

Transport Policy (Consultation Document)

Dr. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislative proposals he has arising out of the consultative document on transport.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he envisages any legislation following his consultation document on transport.

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislative proposals he has arising out of the consultation document on transport.

Mr. Shore: A number of proposals discussed in the consultation document would, if adopted, require legislation. I cannot, however, announce legislative proposals on them until I have considered the response to the document.

Dr. Glyn: Does the Secretary of State nevertheless agree that the vital thing is efficiency on road, rail, water and all services and the necessary restriction of heavy lorries? Does he equally agree, as my hon. Friends have already said, that there is a real problem with regard to the burden borne by the commuter travelling to work? The Minister has himself said that he is not prepared to subsidise the services, so can he twist the arm of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to get him to allow travel to work as an expense against income tax?

Mr. Shore: On the first point, of course I agree that one of the aims must be to get the right balance among all the different transport services, including those mentioned by the hon. Member. On the second question, I do not wish to sound unsympathetic, but I believe that an Opposition who are constantly asking the Government to cut down and retrench on public expenditure should show more concern for the broad public expenditure restraints within which we are bound to operate. That does not mean—nor has it been suggested—that subsidies as a whole will be slashed, let alone abolished. We have not said that. What we have asked, however, is that there should be a limit on them and that we should make the best use of them among the different claims upon them.

Mr. MacGregor: Can the Secretary of State give any more details of the legislation referred to in the consultation document for modest relaxations of the bus licensing system in rural areas? When will it come before the House? This is a matter of great concern to hon. Members representing rural areas. Will any of the experimental transport schemes referred to in the same paragraph be undertaken in Norfolk?

Mr. Shore: I cannot answer the last question without notice. I must repeat that it is not right for me, at the moment, to try to itemise those conclusions arising out of the policy review that would lead to


legislation. Of course, one of these proposals is that there could be a reorganisation of the bus industry and changes in the licensing system, and so on, but I would not wish to pronounce upon these things until, as I said, the consultations have proceeded.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the average railway-man, as distinct from railway union leader, may be asking himself why he should support the Government's central economic strategy while the Government have plans, which they could bring into action next year and beyond, to take away his job and those of his comrades?

Mr. Shore: I hope that the average members of the railway unions, just like the leaders of the unions as a whole, will not put the question to themselves in that form. What I hope they will wish to do is, first, recognise the overall national advantage of the agreement that my right hon. Friend has been negotiating and, second, understand the contribution that today and in the future, just as in the past, an efficient railway industry can make to our national prosperity.

Sir G. Young: Will the present Secretary of State dissociate himself entirely from the negative comments that his predecessor inserted in page 79 of the document, about the bicycle? Will he, instead, take this oportunity to make it absolutely clear that he and his Government will do all they can to promote this healthy, efficient and non-polluting form of transport?

Mr. Shore: I reply to that question as an ex-cyclist rather than a practising one. I have always felt that we should make it possible for people who wish to use the cycle to use it to the maximum possible extent, consistent with safety. That is the real problem that faces so many would-be users of bicycles, particularly in our cities. I understand that there are one or two schemes relating to this matter. I am thinking of the one in Portsmouth, which has been tried out by the council, to encourage the use of cycles and to make their use safer. I shall be interested to see what the results are.

Mr. Clemitson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the proposals contained in the consultation document will achieve

the best use of resources and the best co-ordination of the different forms of transport?

Mr. Shore: No, Sir, I am not convinced yet. I look upon the consultation document as being—I think this is how we describe it—a well-researched and serious analysis of the total transport situation in Great Britain. These proposals are half proposals and the whole emphasis is that they should be the basis for consultations. I shall not be persuaded of any particular proposal until I have had that consultation and have heard everyone's views.

Mr. Raison: In spite of what the Minister has just said, the consultative document does include a very firm statement of Government policy. Does he accept that the flavour of that statement is that the massive transfer from road to rail, talked about in both the 1974 manifestos, is no longer possible? Does he propose to stand by the manifesto or the consultative document?

Mr. Shore: That is an unreal over-simplification. I do not think any serious person on either side of the House would wish other than to see the maximum possible transfer of freight from the roads to the railways. Of course we want to see that. All that the document says, and says repeatedly, is that on the evidence before it a massive transfer may well be impossible.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further consultations he intends to have on matters arising out of the consultation document on transport.

Mr. Shore: I have specifically invited comments from over 100 organisations with a direct interest in transport; either I or my hon. Friends intend to meet representatives of those that are principally involved. We would welcome constructive comments from other interested organisations and individuals

Mr. Neubert: Is it not misconceived that strategic long-distance bus services should be allowed to be dependent for their survival on grants from different local authorities operating competing subsidised local services on sections of the same routes? In advance of an agreed and coherent policy on public transport.


will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that long-distance services are not run down and dismantled to the detriment, in particular, of those who have no car and who are not likely to have one for some time ahead?

Mr. Shore: I shall watch out for the problem in the interim period, but in terms of consultation we envisage the sort of considerations that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, which are properly matters for discussion in the framework of the general discussions for which we have asked.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will the consultations on the existing proposed policy include consultations with the unions, hon. Members and others who supported the 1968 Act and the Railways Act 1974. the implementation of which we have not seen and which contradict to some extent the present policy as expressed in the consultation document?

Mr. Shore: I am not absolutely certain to which groups my hon. Friend is referring. As I have already made clear, we shall be most anxious to hear the views of the railway unions, the unions generally and the various statutory corporations that are operative in the railway and bus industries.

Mr. Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman have consultations about shipping services, and specifically about the urgent need for a second run at Stranraer Harbour, to cater for the British Rail steamers that ply to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Shore: I do not promise the hon. Gentleman specifically that I shall turn my mind to the question of Stranraer, but I hope that the shipping services will be included in the consultation.

Layfield Report

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is causing delay in the publication of the Layfield Report on Local Government Finance.

The Minister for Planning aad Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): The size and complexity of the Layfield Report, which runs to 733 pages of typescript, has meant that publication was bound to take some time. However, I hope that, subject to any possible printing delays. the report will be published by the end of this month.

Mr. Durant: Does the Minister agree that there has been an appalling delay in publishing this very important document? We have been waiting for it for a long time. Is there something in it that needs to be hidden? Are the Government nervous of publishing it before the local elections? When the document is published, will the Minister see that there is the widest possible consultation':

Mr. Silkin: I shall take the most serious part of the question first. Yes, there will be the widest possible consultation. The lion. Member is not being fair to the chairman and members of the panel, including people from his own party as well as mine, and trade unionists, who did an enormous amount of work and put tremendous efforts into this document. From a fairly narrow electoral advantage point of view, I would rather the document had been published already.

Mr. Heffer: Whatever the Layfield Report recommends, it is high time there was a reform of housing finance. It is absolutely stupid that local authorities of the size of Liverpool and Birmingham, for example, should have to pay more than, or as much as, they paid previously in interest charges in order to borrow money now to build houses. This is an absurd situation, and I hope that the Minister will look into it.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the long supplementary questions I propose to call fewer for the rest of Question Time.

Mr. Silkin: I do not know whether this arises directly out of the report, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is continuing the housing finance review. He and I and the Under-Secretary responsible for housing are all very concerned about the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has made, and these matters will have to be considered.

Mr. Graham Page: Has the Minister any programme in mind for implementing the report—I imagine he will wish to consult local authorities—and bringing it before the House? How long will it be before we see the results in any legislation, if this is needed?

Mr. Silkin: The short answer is "As speedily as possible" The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) occupied my position with distinction, and he is aware that, if there are to be meaningful consultations, the thing has to be done properly, and as much time as possible has to be allowed. When we publish the report which I hope will be by the end of the month, I shall acquaint the House with the arrangements that will follow the consultation period.

Greater London Development Plan

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now make a statement about the Greater London Development Plan and any further modifications he intends to make; and if he will announce the future population size he intends to use as a guideline.

Mr. John Silkin: It is too early to make a further statement on the Greater London Development Plan. The objection period expired on 10th March 1976 and I cannot yet comment on the plan. But, more generally, any view of the future of London must include a considered assessment of the future population and development of south-eastern England.

Mr. Atkinson: My right hon. Friend must be aware that he is merely repeating the views expressed by many Ministers before him. He must be aware of the urgency of this matter and the need to reach a conclusion in order to co-ordinate London authorities and the Government. It is time to state clearly the principle that more industry is needed in the outer areas of London. We need an exchange of people whereby those living in the centre of London can move out to jobs outside the capital, while those living outside can come into London to work.

Mr. Silkin: I think that my hon. Friend is—unusually—being a little unfair. A number of objections have been made

to the plan and these need to be studied. Because there is a necessary process to be gone through, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to consider matters that need to be studied and then commented on. I share his concern—I am a Member for a London constituency, as he is—and what he has said is. in broad terms, absolutely right.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Minister agree that much of the planning assumption that went into the plan is inaccurate, because no one has yet any assumption of population figures? This is the most important thing for the Government to decide on.

Mr. Silkin: While I understand the question that the hon. Member is putting, I think it is rather an attempt to get me to make an unsuitable reply when a reply should be given in the proper form. The best thing I can do is refer to a statement made by the previous Secretary of State—who is now the Foreign Secretary—in October 1975, and say that the matter is being adequately dealt with.

Construction Industry (Research)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making with his review of the present arrangements for preventive research into the causes of failures of design, components or construction work; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Armstrong: The review is not yet complete. We shall make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Latham: Does the Minister share the uneasy view that there have been far too many such failures in recent years? Is he satisfied that the Building Research Establishment devotes sufficient time to exploring new technologies before they are used, instead of finding out why they failed afterwards?

Mr. Armstrong: I share my hon. Friend's concern about failures. Construction methods are changing and new materials are being used all the time, so there are bound to be potential hazards. I am satisfied that everything is being done to remove the potential hazards and to make sure that failures do not occur.

Roads (Parking Restrictions)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many draft orders for waiting restrictions on car parking on trunk roads have been withdrawn during the last year as the result of objections.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): In the year ending 13th April 1976, two such orders have been with-drawn as the result of objections, one completely and the other to be amended and republished.

Mr. Marten: In order to avoid that sort of thing happening—as happened in Woodstock in my constituency—may I suggest that more consultation takes place with organisations such as chambers of commerce and local shopkeepers, so that everyone of importance is consulted before an crder is finally made?

Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the difficulties that existed in the hon. Member's constituency. However, the fact that it has been necessary to withdraw only two orders in a year is pretty good evidence that we are doing a reasonable job on consultation.

Transport Policy Review

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received from the public concerning his transport policy review; and what have been the main themes of these representations.

Mr. Shore: I have so far received about 50 representations, mostly from the public, related specifically to the consultation document. The main theme has been concern over the future and cost of public transport.

Mr. Newton: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is very great concern, especially among young married couples who were encouraged to move out of London and now find that they are in a vice—a money trap—with rising commuter fares? Will he further accept that there is a general feeling that the policy for commuter fares has not been properly related to social and planning considerations in the whole area around London? Will he take another look at that?

Mr. Shore: I promise to give serious thought to the whole connection between —as the hon. Member puts it—broad social environmental policy and the allocation of subsidies that are available for passenger transport.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: How many members of my right hon. Friend's Department who are involved in preparing the consultation document have first-hand knowledge of running a railway system or, for that matter, any other transport industry?

Mr. Shore: I cannot help my hon. Friend on that point. In producing a review of this kind we have to strike a balance between those who have professional experience in running a transport service and those who have the advantage of being able to take a broader and overall view of all the different kinds of transport services.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister agree that the emphasis in the consultation document is on transferring from rail to road? Will he bear in mind the article in the Daily Telegraph concerning possible closure of those lines which are receiving a social subsidy? Will he give an undertaking that he will put before the House, before they are implemented, any proposals by British Rail concerning possible closures of these services?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Member is entering into hypothetical questions, beginning with his opening remarks about action to transfer from rail to road, which he says we envisage. I do not necessarily agree with that at all.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet leaders of the rail unions to discuss the conclusions of the transport policy review.

Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend and I hope soon to meet the leaders of the railway trade unions to discuss the consultation document.

Mr. Cook: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite a reduction of over half of the manpower of British Rail, many rail workers remain anxious to achieve even greater productivity in the railway system, but they find it difficult to reconcile the greater output that that would require with the policy of higher fares, reduced


frequencies, lower investment in electrification and advanced passenger trains and other aspects of the policy?

Dr. Gilbert: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the investment level for British Rail under the Public Expenditure Survey Committee is at a higher level than it has been since 1962, in real terms, after allowing for inflation. We are intending to continue that level of investment throughout the PESC period. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is really for British Rail to decide how it meets the financial disciplines that we are imposing upon it. As the consultation document says, to the extent that one solution is forsworn, the burden will fall that much more heavily on the other possible options.
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on his recent sponsorship by the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the rail union leaders clearly whether he agrees with the commitment in the October 1974 manifesto that there should be a major transfer of freight from road to rail, or with the consultation document that his Department has produced, which describes this as a pipe dream? Surely the rail union leaders deserve to know where he stands on this issue.

Dr. Gilbert: We always made it clear that the transfer of freight from road to rail was our objective where it made economic and environmental sense. That is still the formula in the consultation document.

Council House Sales (Lincolnshire)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses in Lincolnshire have been sold to sitting tenants since January 1974.

Mr. Armstrong: Five dwellings, not built specifically for sale, have been reported sold.

Mr. Brotherton: Does the Minister agree that that is a disgracefully low figure? Will he press his right hon. Friend to reverse the Government's policy and to make sure that sitting tenants in council houses who wish to purchase their properties may do so?

Mr. Armstrong: I do not agree with the hon. Member. It is for the local

authority concerned, which knows the circumstances, to make such decisions. As for the general policy, I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend in Hansard on 28th April, at column 416.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the earlier remarks by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) about young couples being caught in a trap demonstrate that owner-occupation has been forced down the throats of some young people, and that it is important to keep a pool of rented accommodation for those who need it?

Mr. Armstrong: I agree that there are those living in intolerable circumstances who are completely dependent upon local authority housing. A doctrinaire approach to this matter does not help them.

Mr. Rossi: Is the Minister aware of the survey carried out by the British Market Research Bureau, which showed that nearly 80 per cent. of those in the 20 to 24 age group wished to buy a house if they could? Will he encourage local councils to build in partnership with private builders and sell council houses, so that the desire of these young people may be satisfied?

Mr. Armstrong: In a recent debate my right hon. Friend outlined very fully and clearly the Government's policy on the sale of council houses. Many of those who are living in the most difficult circumstances are completely dependent on local authorities for decent dwellings, and we have to pay regard to that.

Housing (Owner-Occupation)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current proportion of owner-occupied properties to the total of the housing stock.

Mr. Armstrong: It is estimated that about 55 per cent. of the total stock of dwellings in England were owner-occupied at the end of 1975.

Mr. McCrindle: That is a reasonable advance towards what I would call a property-owning democracy, but has the Minister any further suggestions about how we may advance to the 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. levels of Australia and


the United States? Will he consider, in spite of his last answer, the controlled sale of council houses on the one hand and the restoration of tax relief on mortgages over £25,000 on the other?

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Member should bear in mind that when the Government came to office in February 1974 we inherited a mortgage famine, and house prices had gone through the roof. Our policy to stabilise building society funds has enabled many more families to own their own homes.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the most important and influential action ever taken to assist more people to own their own homes was the introduction of the option mortgage scheme—and that was introduced by a Labour Government?

Mr. Armstrong: I have pleasure in reaffirming that that excellent advance was made by a Labour Government.

Skiing

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for supporting the development of skiing among young people in Great Britain; and if he will make a grant towards the costs of the first English Junior Ski Championships.

Mr. John Silkin: I welcome the excellent work being done by the National Ski Federation of Great Britain to promote skiing among young people. The Sports Council is responsible for allocating grants to sport from the Government's annual grant in aid, but I understand that the federation has not applied for grant aid for the First English Junior Ski Championships as it has found a commercial sponsor for this event.

Mr. Roberts: The achievements of the National Ski Federation, the local authorities and the Government have been impressive in this respect, but is my right hon. Friend aware that although a great many working-class children are interested in skiing the great majority of those who participate, particularly in championship events, are upper-class children? Does he not accept that there is a great deal to be done if we are to move towards the old Socialist doctrine that we should all live at the Ritz?

Mr. Silkin: I am glad that my hon. Friend has paid full and fair tribute to the work of the Ski Federation of Great Britain. I am very impressed that it is starting children off very young, with competitions for the under-elevens. I believe that it has managed to train about 60,000 children and that on this May Day—or very near it—high in our ideals must be the provision of ski facilities for the whole community.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the ridiculous suggestion that there should be a subsidy for skiing is indicative of the philosophy which gives us a public sector borrowing requirement of £12 billion and puts us on the slippery slopes not of skiing but of hyper-inflation?

Mr. Silkin: I doubt whether even my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put inflation down totally to the increase in skiing in Great Britain. I cannot help thinking that in the use of his mixed metaphor the hon. Gentleman was a bit ambivalent. Skiing is a splendid sport, which I like to watch on television.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister confident that the resources available to the Sports Council to encourage skiing, particularly in international competitions abroad, are adequate, in view of our performance at the Olympic Games?

Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman is leading me into paths in which I have an invincible ignorance, but I know that the work that the federation has been putting in hand has greatly increased the interest in skiing in this country. Therefore, one hopes for better results in future. As regards subsidies, I said in my original answer that, rather fortunately, there was a commercial sponsor for this event, and hope that there will be many more.

M23 (Surrey)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has had from the residents of Beddington and Wallington, in Surrey, about the proposed route for the M23 north of Hooley.

Dr. Gilbert: In the past six months the Department has received five letters from local residents or associations representing their interests.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that, although he may have received only five representations, I have received a much larger number from residents in Beddington and Wallington who are worried not so much about the possibility of traffic congestion resulting from the M23 ending at Hooley as about property blight that continues because of the uncertainty that still exists? Will he take an early and unambiguous decision not to extend the motorway north of Hooley?

Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the degree of public concern that has persisted over many years. I have had discussions with hon. Members who represent constituencies bordering on the hon. Gentleman's division. Property blight is a very serious matter. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, as a result of the decision that I took on the northern terminal, we recently lifted blight from 1,400 houses. Unfortunately, I shall not be in a position to make an unambiguous statement until the GLC has reported to us and we have had final discussions.

Rural Transport

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he proposes to take to improve rural transport.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what new measures he proposes to take to improve rural transport.

Dr. Gilbert: I refer the hon. Members to chapter 6 of the consultation document on transport policy, and in particular to paragraphs 1, 7 and 8 of that chapter.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the financial difficulties now facing bus companies, county councils and car owners make the problem of rural bus services extremely urgent, especially for the elderly? A month ago the hon. Gentleman said that he intended to promote a number of experiments. What are those experiments to be, where are they to be held, and when does he intend to promote them?

Dr. Gilbert: I cannot answer the specific questions that the hon. Gentleman puts to me. However, I can tell him that we are already arranging a first

meeting of the commission, on which will be represented local authorities, trade unions and the operators of rural bus services. The commission will consider the terms of the Bill, which we are hoping to introduce as soon as may be. The intention is to have three or four areas in which experiments will take place. That will relate to the relaxation of present licensing arrangements, but there is a need for safeguards for those who work in the industry and for public safety.

Mr. Winterton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there are many retired people and low-wage earners living in rural areas where no public transport exists? Is he further aware that they find it difficult to continue to run their cars? Will he introduce legislation to relax the public service licensing laws in rural areas?

Dr. Gilbert: I do not think there is anything I can add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). The relaxation of public service licensing is a sensitive and delicate matter. The system exists for the protection of those who work in the industry and for the protection of the general public. We must proceed cautiously before moving to relax the arrangements. Clearly there is a fundamental need to consider the problem of rural transport, including the sort of problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers and from which his constituents suffer. Part of the difficulty has been the explosion of private car ownership, which has made it difficult to run public services in rural areas.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is not the problem far more urgent than the Government have so far recognised? Do they think that a modest relaxation of licensing and a couple of experiments amount to an adequate response to this urgent situation? Do they not recognise the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend? Will they not make speedier progress?

Dr. Gilbert: I have no intention of dismantling the public service licensing system overnight merely to suit some of the doctrinaire prejudices of the hon. Gentleman. The matter is much more serious than that. Nothing whatever was done by the hon. Gentlemen's party when in power, although its members are now


claiming that they want dramatic changes overnight. This is a matter that must be approached with considerable caution. The advantages and disadvantages must be weighed very carefully.

Earth Tremors (Stoke-on-Trent)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to take to investigate the causes of earth tremors in Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. Shore: Monitoring and analysis of these tremors have been conducted and funded locally since they began in 1975, and work will continue on this basis until October. Arrangements are now being discussed with the Institute of Geological Sciences for the further continuance of work in the Stoke area directed towards establishing causation in the context of broader analysis of earth movements in sensitive areas in and around the Midlands.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an Adjournment debate, following unsatisfactory answers, the Minister of State gave me a categorical assurance that the experts and equipment would remain in Stoke-on-Trent until the cause of these earth tremors had been found? The Secretary of State is now talking about October and discussions. I appreciate the way in which he has handled the matter so far, but if there is to be any dilution of the categorical assurance that the equipment and experts will remain in Stoke-on-Trent until the cause is found my right hon. Friend is due for a very interesting time.

Mr. Shore: I understand my hon. Friend's proper and legitimate concern. I am happy to repeat the assurance that the equipment will remain in the Stoke-on-Trent area until the cause of the tremors has been established. Further, we are working out proposals with the IGS for a broader coverage of the Midlands area, including Stoke, to see whether we can throw further light on the causes of these occurrences.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clearer response to his hon. Friend, because his first response appeared to mean that the equipment was to be withdrawn. Will he ensure that something is published by

the end of the year to reassure people living in that part of the West Midlands?

Mr. Shore: I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I am most anxious, as I am sure that both he and the whole House are, to get to the bottom of this problem and to find out the causes. As soon as we can reach a point where we feel reasonably confident that we have the answer, I shall arrange for an appropriate statement or publication to be made.

Housing Statistics

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what the latest housing statistics are in the public and private sectors; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: House building figures for the first quarter of 1976 were published on 27th April. They show that in the public sector starts were up by 25 per cent. on the first quarter of 1975, and completions by 12 per cent. On the same comparison in the private sector, starts and completions were up by 28 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively. These are encouraging figures and show that the improvement we achieved last year is being maintained.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the figures for public sector dwellings would have been even better had it not been for the fact that the 60-year loan period for borrowing the money is reduced? For instance, does he agree that more than 80 per cent. of the total cost of any new council dwelling goes to the moneylenders, and that we ought to do something about that? Will he take up the suggestion that I made to his predecessor of trying to find ways of reducing the 60-year loan period and, in the process, making the necessary compensatory payments to local authorities because of the extra payments that will be incurred over the shorter repayment period?

Mr. Shore: I certainly note what my hon. Friend said about the 60-year loan period. Indeed, that point was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) in an earlier supplementary question. I think that I should be well advised—as it were, advising myself—to say no more than that I am happy to look into that suggestion.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in practicaly every area in the country there is an abundance of private houses available for sale? In those circumstances, and as every local authority responsible for housing has a huge waiting list, should not greater attention be concentrated on the provision of houses in the public sector?

Mr. Shore: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is satisfactory information of a growing provision of houses in the public sector. In addition, there are the municipalisation proposals on which we are concentrating in respect of areas of great housing stress.

British Railways Board (Chairman)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the Chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Shore: I shall be meeting the Chairman and members of the British Railways Board towards the end of this month.

Mr. Cryer: When my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the British Railways Board, will he ensure that he understands that British Rail should enter into the fullest possible consultations when withdrawing freight traffic? In particular, will my right hon. Friend ask him to review his decision to withdraw the carriage of pigeons, which provides revenue of up to £2 million per year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain Rail seems too easily disposed to get rid of freight traffic? Does he also agree that legislation similar to the TUCC system regarding passenger service withdrawals should be brought in to deal with freight?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider what my hon. Friend said about consultation procedures. I think that what he has in mind—at least, this is what I have in mind, listening to his supplementary question—is that passenger services are subject to statutory consultative procedures whereas freight services are not. It does not necessarily mean that there are no informal consultative procedures affecting particular freight services. I promise to look into the matter further. I shall also give most anxious thought to the question of the carriage of pigeons.

Mr. Raison: When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the fact that the consultation document states that the railways could not at present cope with a substantial increase in peak traffic? In view of that statement, is it not nonsense for bodies such as the GLC to talk of imposing penal charges on motorists? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that if the GLC imposes a £3 parking charge that charge will apply also to those who use the GLC's car park?

Mr. Shore: I cannot accept that suggestion. We must consider charging not only for public car parks but for private parking facilities. This subject is dealt with in the consultation document.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should welcome a little colour.

Mrs. Ewing: When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he tell him that the staff in Scotland are aggrieved at the fact that Scotland is the dumping ground for old rolling stock? Will he also tell him that the Scots noticed that, when the flow of North Sea oil was opened, Scotland suddenly got marvellous rolling stock from England for that special occasion, so that English passengers would not know about the rotten old rolling stock that it normally gets?

Mr. Shore: I am delighted to hear evidence of an improvement in the quality of the rolling stock that has appeared on Scottish rail track in recent years. I shall ensure that the attention of the Chairman of British Rail is drawn to what the hon. Lady said about the age and type of stock in Scotland.

Building Contracts (EEC Advertising Requirement)

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional costs are being borne in the public building and construction sector due to the necessity of having to advertise all contracts above £450,000 in the EEC in accordance with the terms of membership of that organisation.

Mr. Armstrong: The additional cost of advertising contracts above £415,000 is not known, but it is likely to be


extremely small in relation to the expenses necessarily incurred in designing projects and placing contracts for their construction.

Mr. Dean: Is my hon. Friend aware that I do not accept that answer? I have reason to believe that substantial costs, of between £40 million and £50 million, are being incurred in public sector house building contracts by having to comply with that nonsensical condition of membership of the EEC. If my hon. Friend wishes it, I can furnish him with the details on which I base that calculation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.

Mr. Armstrong: The British Government have tried to raise the threshold. If my hon. Friend has any such evidence, I shall be very glad to have it and consider it very carefully.

Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that since January 1973 2,500 British public works contracts have been put out to tender in the Common Market and that not one has been taken up or accepted? If we cannot raise the thres-hold, is not the answer really to ignore this useless, fussy and time-wasting procedure?

Mr. Armstrong: I am aware of the information that the hon. Gentleman has given. We are making representations.

ICELAND (FISHERIES DISPUTE)

Mr. Pym: (by Private Notice )asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the protection of the British fishing fleet in the seas around Iceland.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): As the House knows, the Royal Navy was first sent to the fishing grounds off Iceland last November. Royal Navy and RAF protection was then withdrawn for a short period during the discussions between my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Iceland at the end of January. It was resumed when no settlement was reached and harassment by Icelandic gunboats continued.
For the most part, Royal Navy protection has proved very effective. No

trawlers have been arrested and in the period 28th February to 21st April, for example, only one trawler had its warps cut.
However, Icelandic gunboats have recently adopted new and particularly dangerous tactics, resulting in serious damage to a number of Royal Navy ships and a much increased prospect of loss of life. For the first time there have been as many as six gunboats deployed on the grounds simultaneously, and they have been particularly favoured by weather conditions. In responding to their aggressive and dangerous behaviour we have had to bear in mind our wish to avoid escalatory action which might prejudice the chances of a peaceful settlement or increase the risk to both British and Icelandic lives.
We believe that the present level of protection continues to be of value to our trawlers, but in view of representations received from the industry we are considering whether further steps should now be taken.

Mr. Pym: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he accept that the House and the whole industry have been unstinting in their praise for the Royal Navy's work in enabling our fishermen to go about their legitimate work? Does the Minister's answer mean that from the point of view of the Navy there has been no change and no reduction in the level of naval protection but that the change has come wholly on the Icelandic side?
Are the fishermen being kept fully informed of the position and what the Navy is doing, and are they entirely happy about the protection arrangements at present? What exactly was the decision that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday said would be taken in the next 24 or 48 hours? I do not think that the House is clear about that.
Will the Minister say something about the present state of negotiations to settle the position, which clearly is the desire of the whole House? Does he realise that what the House wants is to be satisfied about the adequacy of protection and its continuation for the safety of our fishermen fishing in those waters?

Mr. Rodgers: First, I am sure that the Royal Navy will greatly appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said about


its efforts since it first went in, in November. The industry has made clear to myself and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, for example, that, far from having any criticism of the Royal Navy, the trawlermen are very pleased indeed and fully appreciate the very hazardous circumstances in which the Royal Navy has been operating.
On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, the answer is "Yes". Indeed, we accept that the House is and must be deeply concerned with the level and effectiveness of protection and that we have an obligation to seek to provide it for our fishermen fishing quite legally off Iceland at present.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's particular questions, there is certainly no reduction in the level of Royal Navy protection, nor has there been any change in the rules of engagement, but in view of the changed Icelandic tactics it was necessary to consider how best to protect lives and to enable our frigates to continue a useful protection rôle. It is that change which has given rise to the situation that we see now.
The fishermen off Iceland have been kept informed. I think it would be true to say that there is very close integration on the ground between the trawler-men and the Royal Navy. To say that they are happy about the present level of protection would be untrue. They are concerned by the fact that their catches in recent times have been small. It was for that reason that the industry made representations to my right hon. Friend and to myself and colleagues yesterday.
As for the decision within 48 hours, the burden of what the industry said was that, whereas it fully appreciated the protection that the Navy had given and it understood present problems, it wished us to consider again whether the level of protection—I am thinking in terms not mainly of numbers but of tactics also—could be raised. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture told the trawler-men on the fields yesterday that within 48 hours—in other words, by the end of tomorrow—a decision on the level of protection would be made.
As for the negotiations, the negotiations in Brussels yesterday that were carried out by my right hon. Friend the

Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs were concerned with the broader issues of fisheries policies. He made a statement there, which was widely reported this morning, and I am sure that he would be willing to place a copy in the Library.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fleet must stay there and fish, otherwise our case inevitably must go by default? Speaking personally, I do not want Iceland to win its "phony" case, but, even more so as the Hull Member of Parliament, I do not want my constituents in a dole queue outside the Hull exchange. Finally, does my right. hon. Friend agree that while the vessel owners may be losing money, the possibilities are that men could lose their lives? Therefore, will he give the House, clearly and unequivocally, an assurance on behalf of himself and his colleagues that the Government will give as much protection as possible at this time and no less protection than they gave to our men a month ago?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend very fairly sums up the situation. I entirely agree with him that it is very important that our fishing fleet should stay off Iceland. My latest information is that the trawlers that were there yesterday are still in the area. I hope very much that they will remain there until we are able to send them a further message by the end of tomorrow.
My hon. Friend draws attention to the importance of the fishing industry and to fishing off Iceland to very many people in Britain at present. This is an extremely difficult question of finding a balance between affording adequate protection and trying to avoid the loss of human life. The Royal Navy has succeeded in this, but we are considering whether some changes in the form or level of protection might enable the balance to be struck perhaps rather more effectively than it seems to have been struck in recent weeks.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the case for using the Royal Navy in Icelandic waters is extremely weak and that in view of the Government's virtual acceptance of an extension of the limits it becomes almost indefensible? If he has vessels to use in


that way. why are they not used in protecting Scottish waters, where the protection fleet has been cut by half in recent years?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, and on this and many others matters his case is weak and very unrepresentative of the feeling in the House. I wish that he would be less small-minded and would recognise how important this fishing is to the people of other parts of the United Kingdom. believe that we would all be ready to afford as much necessary protection to the fishermen of Scotland as I hope he believes we should afford to our fishermen off Iceland today.

Mr. Amery: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread impression growing, and reflected in the Press this morning, that the Royal Navy is no longer able to assure, for technical reasons, the protection of our trawler-men? Does he appreciate how serious it would be if this proved to be so? Can he say that that is not the case?

Mr. Rodgers: It is not the case that the Royal Navy is failing to afford a protection rôle to our trawlers off Iceland. There has always been great difficulty in finding a balance between the form and level of protection and avoiding loss of life and the escalation of what is a very delicate and dangerous situation. In so far as our protection may be thought to have been less in the last few weeks, that is the matter Ministers are collectively considering today.

Mr. Brotherton: Bearing in mind that many of my constituents are going about their lawful occasions on the high seas in northern waters, can the Minister repeat the guarantee given to me in this House in February by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the Navy will continue to defend our mariners who are going about their lawful occasions on the high seas until an arrangement or agreement is reached with the Icelandic Government?

Mr. Rodgers: I can certainly give the House that undertaking, but I hope the hon. Member will allow that these problems are highly complex. Apart from

protecting trawlermen pursuing their lawful occasions, we must also seek to protect the lives of sailors in the Royal Navy in particularly difficult circumstances.

PAY POLICY (DISCUSSIONS)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to report to the House on the outcome of the discussions between the Government and the Trade Union Congress on pay and on the wider operation of the social contract during the year from the beginning of next August. The House will already have heard about the conclusion reached by the General Council of the TUC at its meeting this morning.
In my Budget speech I said that, in order to end next year with an inflation rate at least in line with our foreign competitors, we should aim at a further halving of our inflation rate by December 1977, and that this would require that, in the next pay round, the nation's money wage bill should rise by under half as much as it is likely to rise in this pay round. I went on to say that the tax reliefs I was describing were based on the assumption that the pay limit in the next round would be in the area of 3 per cent. but that much would depend on the way in which the new policy was structured.
Early this morning, the Government reached agreement with TUC representatives on recommendations they would make to the TUC General Council to implement the Government's counter-inflation policy in the 12 months beginning 1st August 1976. The General Council has now endorsed these recommendations by a very large and representative majority and will commend them to a special conference called for 16th June.
On pay, the Government's discussions with the TUC concentrated on two main questions. They were the structure of a new pay limit for the year from 1st August 1976; and the level of the limit and its impact on the nation's pay bill. On structure, the discussions produced an increasingly strict and tight form of limit, reducing progressively the risk of extra earnings increases through exceptions or leakage. On the level of the limit, both sides were concerned to reach a conclusion


which met the Government's counter-inflation requirements; which protected the low paid, but at the same time gave more room for differentials than the £6 limit; and which, above all, would command the support of the trade union movement at all levels because there is no basis on which any incomes policy is likely to succeed in practice other than the understanding and support of those on the shop floor.
The result was a pay limit which, if approved by the TUC special conference, can be expected to add, on average, about 4½per cent. to wages and salaries. This increase of about 4½per cent. is well under half the increase represented by the £6 limit. That limit was equivalent to about 101 per cent. and the effect of equal pay and certain transitional provisions was to add upwards of 1 per cent. to that.
The new limit permits a maximum weekly increase of £4 and a minimum of £2.50, with a 5 per cent. limit on increases for those in the middle band of earnings. The effect of the low upper limit is to reduce the impact of the new agreement on the pay bill to about 4½per cent.
I attach the highest importance to the clear and straightforward structure of this new pay limit. It was widely expected that there would be more exceptions and complexities in this second year of the policy and I myself assumed that this would be so at the time of the Budget. In fact, the structure of the new limit is in some respects even simpler than it has been for the £6.
We do not on this occasion have to provide for large equal pay increases or for transitional exceptions outside the pay limit, which, in the current year, have added appreciably to the pay bill. Next, there is no question of consolidating pay increases under the £6 policy into basic rates: this alone could have added as much as 2 per cent. to the total pay bill.
No special exceptions are proposed for productivity bargains. There is no loophole for rectifying what people may see as anomalies.
The calculation of pay increases during the year from 1st August is quite unambiguous and avoids the uncertainties of the pay bill for a group. The increase will take the form of a supplement to the pay of the individual, calculated week

by week or month by month as 5 per cent. of his total earnings, subject to a floor of £2·50 and a ceiling of £4, which will apply to incomes at all levels above £80 a week.
Apart from the changed form of the limit, the rules for the £6 limit will continue to apply, subject to a minor exception to permit the negotiation of occupational pension schemes up to the level required by law to permit contracting out of the State scheme, which the Government announced last July.
This 4½per cent. level of pay increase is likely to be below that in practically all the Western developed countries this year. Even the Germans, with their excellent record, are seeing a rate of increase of about 5½per cent.
The Government regard these proposals, like the £6 proposals before them, as a thoroughly responsible and states-manlike response by the TUC to the needs of the counter-inflation programme
.
The recent discussions have not been confined to pay alone. The TUC has naturally stressed the vital importance of keeping the rise in prices to the minimum during the period of the new pay policy. Price controls must not be swept aside while an incomes policy is in operation. The Government therefore believe that price controls on both profits and costs must continue at this time, but that the price control regime must be so modified as to encourage investment and jobs in our economy.
My right hon. Friend will be discussing current price controls and the essential changes that we believe must be made to ensure economic growth with the CBI, the TUC and all other interested parties. As soon as these discussions have been concluded, a further statement will be made to the House and a consultative document will be issued in the normal way.
In order to contain the effect of price increases on those with growing families I propose not to proceed with next September's 5p increase in school meal charges. This will cost £35 million in the current year. It is something to which the TUC representatives attached great importance in our talks.
The TUC has, of course, been equally concerned with jobs and training. As


recent surveys have shown, demand from exports and investment is now expected to increase rapidly and the prospects for employment are much brighter in consequence.
Since the last TUC Annual Congress I have brought forward four separate sets of selective measures, in September, December and February and again in my recent Budget, to improve the prospects for employment, both directly, as through the introduction and improvement of the temporary employment subsidy, and indirectly, for example, through the additional expenditure on industry schemes and to extend facilities for industrial training. The full effect of these measures has not yet come through, but we estimate that more than 100,000 people already have jobs or training places as a result of them. I now propose to allocate an additional £15 million for training and job creation by the Manpower Services Commission.
The total additional expenditure of £50 million will be charged against the contingency reserve and will not add to the expenditure totals announced in the Public Expenditure White Paper.
The Government are satisfied that the new agreement, if approved by the TUC special conference, will, as I have explained, meet the requirements of the counter-inflation policy. When that has happened, we therefore propose to recommend to Parliament the enactment in full of the conditional tax reliefs specified in the Budget.

Sir G. Howe: The Chancellor has made a long and important statement. The House will wish to have an opportunity for an early and separate debate on the matters disclosed in it, but there are a number of questions that I ought to ask today.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will welcome the extent to which the figures now being discussed introduce a far greater sense of realism than prevailed during the disastrous era of the social contract, when the entire nation was taken for a ride? Can the right hon. Gentleman also give the House an absolutely candid assurance that he has entered into no kind of undisclosed or secret undertakings with the TUC that might restrict his freedom and his

duty to the country to take whatever steps may be necessary still further to reduce public spending in the year that lies ahead?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the figures he has outlined are matters for negotiation or are an entitlement? If people are to be entitled to the minimum of £2·50, is that consistent with the rest of the policy? Can he tell us whether those on incremental scales, particularly in the public sector, are to be covered by this limit, or are they to remain in a privileged position?

Mr. George Cunningham: Have the grace to say "Well done".

Sir G. Howe: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Pay Research Unit will remain in suspension or will resume its work?
The House will be surprised that
the area of 3 per cent.
is wide enough to include a figure of 4½per cent. It will also have been surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this agreement is more simple than the £6 limit. Can he give us an indication of the effect of these proposals on the level of demand in the economy, and an assurance that they will not add to the risks of reflationary pressures later in the year? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long"] The leaders of the TUC have had days in which to consider these matters, and this House is entitled to have a few minutes at least to consider them today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chancellor was heard in silence. I know that the arguments are provocative, but the House must listen.

Sir G. Howe: Is the Chancellor aware that we also attach the highest importance to the relaxations proposed in price control which he himself described in his Budget Statement as crucial to the restoration of business confidence? Does he also appreciate that the most serious aspect of what he has outlined is the severity of the top limit of £4 a week—less than half the £7 cut-off under stage 3, which was so fiercely denounced by the Labour Party at the time? Does he appreciate that that can pose a very great danger to the whole policy and the whole economy? All those skilled workers and


managers about whom he said so much earlier in the year, all those earning more than £80 a week, all those who have made the greatest sacrifice, are to be still further penalised.
Finally, but by no means least important, there is the position of Parliament itself. Why did the Chancellor choose to announce these matters to a Press conference this morning instead of in this House this afternoon? As the TUC and its constituent unions are to have many opportunities to consider these matters beyond those opportunities they have had already, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will consider the views and representations of this House on these vital matters? Otherwise, he must recognise that he has done grave damage to the pattern of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Healey: First, I think I should congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) on choking back his disappointment at our success to the extent that he found it possible, very reluctantly and under pressure, to congratulate the Government on their success in these negotiations. I look forward to the debate which he wishes to have possibly with more enthusiasm than he does.
First, there are no undisclosed commitments in this agreement to the TUC or to anyone else. Secondly, as with the £6 limit, the limits set this time provide a limit for negotiation and not entitlement. Thirdly, as I have made clear, the rules are the same as they were for the £6 limit, including increments: for the same reason, the PRU will, of course, be in suspension for the duration of the new limits. Fourthly, the effect on demand of the total package, including tax reliefs, as I said in my Budget Statement, will be to add about one-third of 1 per cent. to the gross domestic product.
I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the new pay limits were far too severe, at least on that section of the population which is better off than the rest of the population. I remind him that among the tax reliefs is an increase of £500 in the first five of the higher rate thresholds.
Finally, we shall certainly take account of the views of the House of Commons. I hope that when we debate these mat-

ters the Conservative Front Bench will make it clear, as it so lamentably failed to do in our last debate, whether it is in favour of an incomes policy or not.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nation and the vast majority of this House will be grateful for what has been said? Does he not agree that the trade union movement has demonstrated once again that when the nation is in crisis it is prepared to show statesmanship and genuine patriotism?
My one question is about price control. I understand, as I am sure we all do, the problems involved, but what is so difficult for ordinary people outside to understand is that many of the increases come from those over whom the Government have a measure of control—for example, the railways and the Post Office [Interruption.] Nothing can be said by the Tory Party on this matter because it does not believe in subsidies in any form for State-owned industries and the rest, so hon. Members opposite can shut up. My right hon. Friend must make it abundantly clear to the public —[HON. MEMBERS: "Question.")—at least it is intelligent—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course it is, as I would expect, but we are not going to debate the matter today.

Mr. Mellish: I am simply asking my right hon. Friend to make it abundantly clear that the Government are not only aware of the problem of the rising costs of State-owned industry and the danger of this sabotaging what he is trying to do but will deal with the matter, since most people accept that we must get on top of the problem. May I end on this note.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is an interrogatory note.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our personal thanks for this agreement are due to him and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If speeches are to be made in the guise of asking questions, will you allow interventions in the speeches?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will be fair to their colleagues. A


great many hon. Members wish to ask questions. Unless they are reasonably brief, many of them will be disappointed.

Mr. Healey: First, let me thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for his congratulations.
On nationalised industry price increases, the whole House agrees that it is desirable that the nationalised industries should be able to pay their way. This is certainly the view of all the trade unions in the nationalised industries themselves. Where increases in nationalised industry prices have been necessary, they have been due largely either to increases in oil prices in the energy industries or to increases in wages. We must enable the nationalised industries to make a contribution to the national economy on the same basis as any other industry.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members on the Opposition side always hoped that agreement would be reached and are glad that it has been reached? Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly that, however satisfactory 4½per cent. may be as a result of these negotiations, it is 4½per cent. more than the country can afford and that it will have to be either borrowed or printed? By how much does he expect this deal to affect the rate of inflation by the end of 1977, and by how much will it add to the total of public sector salaries and wages?

Mr. Healey: Let me first thank the hon. Gentleman for his words about the Government's success.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the effect of the 4½per cent. on public sector salaries. It is not likely to have a significant effect beyond what was already included in the cash limits which, as he will know, assumed an increase of between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. This is slightly below the lower end of that.
The effect of the deal on the rate of inflation, given the increase in output and productivity which is now under way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Those hon. Members who ask where might well read the surveys by the Financial Times

or the CBI. The wage increases here will add to the RPI by the end of next year only about 2 per cent. But there is likely to be a hardening of import and commodity prices over the coming year, and the recent depreciation in sterling will also increase our import prices.

Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the nation as a whole will recognise the importance and ingenuity of the agreement that he has reached today and will congratulate all those involved on both the Government and the trade union sides? Is he aware, further, that we hope that the market will take note of the agreement, which could have been reached only in a free bargaining position? Will he accept that all his right hon. and hon. Friends will support him as necessary in the conclusion of the agreement? However, can he enlarge upon the position with regard to productivity bargaining? Does he understand that the lack of provision for productivity bargaining could lead to some damping down of investment?

Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend. I am grateful for what he said about the markets taking note of this agreement. It is very important that all concerned with the performance of the British economy should also note the unprecedented large majority of the TUC General Council which supported this agreement. It was very much larger than that last year, and it includes some very large and important unions which last year found it impossible at a similar stage to support the £6 limit.
On productivity bargaining, my hon. Friend will realise that inevitably there will be some penalty to be paid through the exclusion of productivity bargaining. But to allow productivity bargaining to produce increases above the limits that we set would have been to open a breach in the firmness of the ring fence round the limits, which would have destroyed the very tightness of the policy which has made it possible to give the tax reliefs.

Sir John Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the effect of the pay agreement on skilled workers and those in middle management may be more serious than he has led us to believe? When those in middle management and skilled workers suffer a real fall in their


incomes for the second year in succession because of the operation of this pay code, allied to the fact that the proposed tax benefits will be very largely offset by increases in national insurance contributions, this can have a disincentive effect on middle management as a whole and be serious for the future of our industries. Cannot he give some encouragement to this class of people in the future?

Mr. Healey: I am conscious of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. But I remind him that the raising of the threshold for the higher rate of tax will be of substantial benefit to those in middle management, as will the tax reliefs which I am now able to give in full. Moreover, on this occasion there is no cut-off point on salaries beyond which no increase will be paid. The £4 increase will be available at all levels.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fall in the value of sterling was brought about to pressurise the negotiators on this occasion? Does he think that there is any truth in the statements in the financial Press, and, if there is, does he not agree that it is totally wrong that currency dealings should be used for political purposes?

Mr. Healey: I have not read all the statements in the financial Press, but I have read a great many. With some, I agree. With others, I do not. I have not seen any of the nature suggested by my hon. Friend. He must realise that the pressure on sterling is exerted not by citizens of this country but by people 3,000, 6,000 and 12,000 miles away who look at the news in their newspapers—very often extremely tendentious and misrepresented—and take action accordingly.

Mr. Crawford: Since family incomes in Scotland are lower than those in England—[Hors. MEMBERS: "They are not."]—will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the imposition of a blanket 4½per cent, is a disgraceful and positive discrimination against Scotland?

Mr. Healey: As one of the representatives of the distinguished city of Leeds in West Yorkshire. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the level of incomes in my part of the country is lower than that in Scotland.

Mr. Hordern: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in his Budget speech he said that if there were any increase in the pay norm above 3 per cent. there would have to be corresponding reductions in the tax concessions? How can he justify the fact that there are to be no reductions in the tax concessions when the pay norm is to be 50 per cent. above the level which he set? What will be the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my statement and my answers to subsequent questions. The reason why I am able to give these tax reliefs in full is that the new limit has been drawn so strictly that it is very much tighter even than the £6 limit itself. The hon. Gentleman will know that the general expectation was that the new limit was bound to be very much slacker than the £6 limit. This is not in fact the case.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's second question about the effect on the PSBR, I refer him to my statement. If he was unable to hear it earlier, he will be able to read it in Hansard tomorrow.

Sir G. de Freitas: Since these negotiations have received a great deal of publicity abroad, especially on the Continent, what steps can the Government take through our diplomatic missions to bring to the attention of people abroad the fact that they have been so very successful?

Mr. Healey: I was able to listen on "The World at One" radio programme today to a member of the European Commission giving unstinted praise to the nature of the agreement that we had reached and pointing out that our rate of wage increase in the coming year would be by far the lowest in Europe.

Mr. Lawson: Can the Chancellor confirm that he has agreed—will he please pay attention to the question—with the TUC representatives that as a result of this deal public expenditure will be higher and price and profits controls tighter than they would otherwise have been?

Mr. Healey: No. The hon. Gentleman, as so often, is rather wide of the mark. In respect of price control, the


Prime Minister himself made clear yesterday, before agreement had been reached, that the situation would be as I have stated it today, namely, that profit and costs control will remain but that we shall seek to discuss the amendments, or changes, in the price regime which are necessary to promote more jobs and to stimulate investment.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the fact that, at least on paper, the higher income groups will get a bit more than those on low incomes, would this not be the ideal time to introduce some form of national minimum wage, together with tighter controls on the perks, and other allowances, which allow overpaid business executives and tycoons to escape from any incomes restrictions?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In respect of a national minimum wage, he should recognise that on many occasions attempts to produce exceptionally favourable terms for the low paid have led to an increase in the pay of juveniles and part-time workers very much larger than increases in the pay of full-time adult males. That is one of the factors which have led to excessive juvenile unemployment. On the question of fringe benefits, I would refer my hon. Friend to my Budget speech and to the interchange I had with the Conservative Opposition during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I would like to congratulate the Chancellor if only on making it clear why public expenditure debates in this House are so thinly attended. They are redundant because, apparently, he is settling the matter else-where. I would like to ask him three questions. Can he tell the House what proportion of the total labour force, including middle and junior management, which will get 5 per cent. is earning between £50 and £80 a week; what proportion is earning below £50 a week; and what proportion is earning above £80 a week? That is my first question.
My second question is, how does the Chancellor expect people to invest in expensive machinery if his proposals discourage rewarding the higher paid and the more skilled and also discourage any attempt to end overmanning? My third question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should know that I had it in mind to allow but another five minutes on this, which will be 40 minutes we have spent on this subject. There is other business to follow. Perhaps he might consider the rest of the House.

Mr. Macmillan: I will gladly forgo my third question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Healey: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his somewhat opaque and obscure congratulations? His main question was in respect of the rough proportion of wage earners who fall into the categories which will get the floor cash payment, the percentage payment and ceiling payment. The numbers will shift throughout the year because as earnings rise, those who are caught by the ceiling will tend to increase as a proportion of the total labour force towards the end of the pay round. Broadly speaking, those who will receive the 5 per cent. are 40 per cent.; those who will receive the cash ceiling will be somewhat more than one quarter at the beginning of the year, rising to about one-third at the end of the pay run; those receiving the floor payment will move accordingly.

Mr. Jay: While warmly congratulating both the Government and the TUC on this very valuable agreement might I ask the Chancellor what authority will now give final rulings on whether an individual pay settlement is within the terms of this agreement?

Mr. Healey: The enforcement or monitoring machinery will be exactly the same under this round as under the current pay round, that is to say, in the public sector it will be the responsibility of the relevant public authority to monitor the agreement. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Treasury, operating the new system of cash limits on public expenditure, will make sure that the agreements are honoured. In the private sector the main machinery of enforcement will be applications for price increases under the Price Code as it has been up to the present time.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is it not the case that the vast majority of incremental scale payments are in the public sector? Can the Chancellor explain by what criterion the scale payments in the Civil


Service and the public sector will once again be exempted from the burdens placed on the rest of the community?

Mr. Healey: We discussed this at very great length in the debates last year. I would not deny that the problem of incremental payments has been a problem for all pay policies although, as far as I am aware, all pay policies—including this one—which were supported at the time by members of the Conservative Front Bench allowed for incremental payments within the limits, on the principle that incremental payments arc permitted provided that they go to the group as a whole, in other words, as people move up the incremental scale, others are coming in at the bottom.

Mr. Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend enlarge slightly on the question of price control and say how he proposes to ensure that the resulting investment is actually channelled where it is needed—into the manufacturing industries? Can he say whether the TUC had any reservations about only £15 million to combat unemployment? Would he say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Be fair.

Mr. Cryer: Would he say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chancellor.

Mr. Healey: Currency speculation was not raised with me at all. On the question whether the TUC would like more money to combat unemployment, of course it would have liked it for hundreds of other worthy causes, too, but the TUC accepted, as do the Government, that in a period such as the present Government have to give priorities for public expenditure and, to observe them closely. I was asked about price control and investment relief. We have investment relief in price control at the present time and it is carefully monitored. My hon. Friend would agree with the TUC Economic Review, paragraph 193, which says that it is not desirable that price control should operate in a way which deprives companies of capital for investment or of working capital or capital for stock building. The discussions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will be having with all concerned will be designed to ensure that price control does not operate in such a way as to reduce the number of jobs in the country.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is this arrangement intended to apply to the miners of South Wales who, I understand, have already rejected it? If so, how does the Chancellor expect it to be observed?

Mr. Healey: The miners' union representatives supported these proposals strongly at the General Council this morning. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that fact. May I be a little more precise in answering the question put to me a moment ago? There is no way of enforcing an incomes policy. The Government will rely in the next phase, as it has in this phase, on the support of working people. I would point out that 7½million people have settled within the £6 limit and there has not been one breach to our knowledge. Support for the present agreement is more widespread, at this stage, than support for the last agreement. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember enough about the confrontation between his own party's Government and the NUM not to follow down that road.
Let me try to be more precise on the subject of proportions. I have already explained that overtime next year will tend to shift as activity increases. The proportion on the minimum is likely to be about 34 per cent., on the percentage about 43 per cent., and on the maximum about 23 per cent.—roughly in line with the figures I gave.

Mr. Cant: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he was able to respond to the massive realism of the TUC by giving any assurances about the trend of money supply in the next 15 months?

Mr. Healey: This was not a matter which the "massive realists" of the TUC made the centre of their preoccupations during our discussions. My hon. Friend no doubt noted the remarks on money supply contained in my Budget speech, and I have no doubt that he also will have noted with approval the money supply figures in the last month.

Sir P. Bryan: The right hon. Gentleman said that his limitations were tightly drawn. Will he say how many people are immune from those limitations, either through incremental arrangements or through the fact that their pay is tied to the cost of living?

Mr. Healey: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I shall be glad to look into it. One of the most worrying areas of immunity relates to professional people, such as lawyers, with their very high salaries, whom it has always proved difficult to control, as the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) will no doubt confirm.

Mr. Clemitson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in regard to the question of low pay an important provision to be considered is Schedule 11 of the Employment Protection Act? Will he say whether any increases under that schedule will be exempt from the limits?

Mr. Healey: There are no exceptions to the rules I have stated, other than the matter of bringing occupational pension up to contracting-out level. However, if my hon. Friend tables a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, no doubt he will be given further information.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might be more practicable for the Government to make some safe Labour seats available to certain leaders in the trade union movement so that they could state policy decisions directly to the House instead of through the mouths of the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Healey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to see whether she can oblige in that regard.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since limits, once negotiated, will not be consolidated in the basic overtime rates, and since the £6 limit is also not to be consolidated, is my right hon. Friend aware that he is storing up trouble for the future? Will he take the TUC and the Labour Party into his confidence in any future planning so that we do not again suffer the frenetic activity in the last few days of the wage round?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend must recognise that we have not yet completed the first round under the £6 arrangements. We have just negotiated an agreement to cover the second round, which will operate up to August 1977.

Active as I am in these matters, and indeed anxious as I am to anticipate events, it is a little early to ask me this afternoon to begin negotiating the third round.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Is it not a fact that every section of the community will have to cut back on real spending in the next year? Therefore, is it not even more important that the Government should make at least proportionate cuts in their own spending, otherwise individuals will be denied the benefits of the sacrifices which they are being called upon to make?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this matter has been the "small change" of the discussions between Front Benches for at least a year. I should be more concerned about his attachment to the cause he appears to espouse if the Conservative Front Bench were to say that it was in favour of cutting rent subsidies and subsidies to commuters—and to make those statements before tomorrow's local elections rather than the day after them.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No doubt this matter will come up in the House again.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE)

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Mike Thomas (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the right of medical practitioners to prescribe drugs unless certain conditions have been met; and for connected purposes.
There have been many benefits to society from new and powerful drugs developed in recent years, but there has been increasing concern at the adverse effects associated with many of these drugs and at the increasingly casual way in which they are sometimes prescribed by doctors.
In preparing my remarks for this occasion, I discovered that in the year from October 1973 to October 1974 general practitioners issued nearly 17 million prescriptions for hypnotics, nearly 20 million for tranquillisers, almost 8 million for antidepressants, nearly 5 million for


vitamins. Are we in such a situation that people need that level of prescription—indeed, the almost routine, mindless prescription—of drugs many of which have adverse effects?
We know that almost 3 per cent. of all admissions to hospital are due to adverse drug reactions, and we also know that another 2 per cent. or more of admissions to hospital can be traced to drug overdosage. However, even those figures probably understate the problem. We have yet to discover the proportion of patients who recover not from the effects of any drug which they have been prescribed but simply because those drugs are taken away from them once they have been admitted to hospital. In addition, 10 to 15 per cent. of patients develop adverse reactions to drugs during their stay in hospital. In respect of some drugs, particularly those used to treat heart disease, adverse effects can be seen is as many as 30 per cent. of patients receiving treatment in hospital. The drug that most frequently appears to cause adverse reactions is digoxin, a digitalis derivative.
Those effects are avoidable if doctors are made fully aware of the problems. I do not want to overdramatise the situation, but I should like to mention the case of one of my constituents who for over 10 years was prescribed one of the most potent steroids. She developed gross muscle-wasting and weakness, skin atrophy of such a severity that sheets of skin sheared off with a stroke of the hand, and severe bone atrophy resulting in a fractured thigh bone which required a surgical pinning operation for its repair. The patient also suffered high blood pressure and diabetes, and there were no therapeutic benefits whatever in respect of the arthritis from which she was suffering.
There is increasing concern at the cost of drugs and at the waste of many drugs. I believe that Parliament should take steps to control this area of public spending. Perhaps I could offer one further statistic to the House. It is now more expensive to pay for a general practitioner's drug prescriptions than it is to pay the general practitioner his salary. From the last figures I have unearthed, it appears that on average each practi-

tioner is prescribing drugs worth about £12,000 per year.
In this area of activity, public education is important. My Bill aims to increase the level of education among the medical profession itself because I believe that that is an important consideration which is often forgotten. After all, it is the doctors who are supposed to know about these matters and who, in turn, should safeguard the public.
I should like to see doctors undertaking more drug related education. In recent years there has been a greater development of the specialism of clinical pharmacology. I am glad to see present in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, because I wish to draw attention to the report on this topic by the Royal College of Surgeons, on which we are awaiting with interest the Department's reactions.
There has been an increase in the number of journals available and in the amount of academic interest which is shown in this matter. My Bill aims to capitalise on that expertise by making it more readily available, in particular to general practitioners but also to medical practitioners in the round. My Bill would restrict the prescribing of medicines by fully registered medical practitioners to a small list of relatively safe, innocuous substances drawn up by the Medicines Commission. The medical practitioners would be restricted to providing those drugs and those drugs only, unless they fulfilled certain criteria.
The two main criteria are these. First, medical practitioners should attend a minimum of four full sessions a year on drug-related topics—under Section 63 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968—as approved by a postgraduate dean. Secondly, they should make their patients' records available for scrutiny by professional medical audit panels appointed by the regional boards so that any dangerous trends in their prescribing practices could be picked up and discussed with their professional colleagues.
I do not want to go into the routine detail which is set out in the Bill, but if we were to insist that, in addition to the 10 sessions that medical practitioners currently have to do to qualify for


seniority payments, they should also attend four additional sessions on drug-related topics substantial benefits could be derived.
Each regional medical audit panel should consist, possibly, of four doctors—one clinical pharmacologist, one specialist in the discipline in question, one nominee from the regional medical committee and one nominee from the regional health authority—and two nonprofessionals, perhaps members of the community health councils in the area.
In addition to this educational provision, the Bill contains one further major provision. It provides that no doctor may prescribe for any patient whom he or his partners have not seen for three months previous to the writing of the prescription. The repeat prescription game is in danger of getting substantially out of hand. There are patients who receive the same medication month in, month out, year in, year out, without ever seeing a doctor. That sometimes suits the patients and it sometimes suits the doctor.
I have heard it said, although I have no concrete evidence of it, that some doctors even pre-sign their prescription forms and allow the receptionist to fill out the prescriptions. That may or may not be so, but it is not in a patient's interest to continue to receive a drug or series of drugs, sometimes one drug overlaid on another, often without proper instruction, unless the medical practitioner has thoroughly reviewed the case within the last three months.
I know that there will be concern in the medical profession about my proposals. The profession has already looked at itself in a number of these areas. Last year the BMA conference debated the question of the use of barbiturates but, against the wish of its executive, came down against any form of voluntary ban on the prescribing of barbiturates.
I am not proposing any bureaucratic interference in the rights of doctors to treat their patients as they think best, but the doctors will be criticised if they do not develop further educational provision. I he audit which I have suggested would be carried out not by civil servants but by professional colleagues.
It is Parliament's duty to stop what is in danger of becoming a national scandal, and I hope that the medical profession will realise that unless a halt is called soon in this area the profession itself will be damaged by the developments that result.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I was concerned when I saw on the Order Paper a proposal to restrict the right of medical practitioners to prescribe drugs. I ask the House to think carefully and to reject the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas). With respect to him, it sounds like another piece of dogmatic, theoretic, Socialist nonsense.
I do not dispute that too many drugs are being prescribed in this way. But that has more to do with the level of prescription charges than anything else, and the thought of audit panels being set up fills me with alarm. The hon. Gentleman referred to a small list of relatively safe drugs. What he proposes is a dangerous practice which would put even more power into the hands of the administrators. Since the reorganisation of the National Health Service, many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that it is the over-burdening of the administration of the medical profession which is the greatest problem. The setting up of audit panels on which doctors would serve—rather than treating their patients—strikes me as an unhelpful method of cutting down on administration.
The idea of setting up audit panels to scrutinise patients' needs smacks of "1984". We already have from the Government State-only health proposals. If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were to see the light of day we should end up with State-only prescriptions. I suppose the next step is State-only illness and a person will not be allowed to be ill unless he is suffering from an illness laid down by a panel and agreed to be a proper illness.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not medically qualified, but I had a chance this morning to do a little homework on the subject. I looked up Practitioner


for October 1974, in which Dr. Hamilton states:
It is, of course, impossible to be dogmatic as to the most suitable choice of drug for the individual patient, but certain principles obtain. The most effective drug is usually the one with which the doctor is most familiar.
My understanding of the position is that no two doctors use the same medicine in exactly the same way and that they find from experience which medicines produce the best results in their hands. Any attempt to restrict the doctor in his choice of medicines would prevent the individual practitioner from using his optimum therapy, which would not be in the interests of patients.
There is also the problem of side effects from the drugs which would be administered in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. Emergencies often occur from side effects, and side effects themselves presuppose that the individual circumstances of the patient have caused the side effects. What would follow the introduction of such a proposal? Would litigation follow the administration to a patient of a drug that happened to be unsuitable for him although it had been declared to be suitable by the audit panel and the regional health authority? Would the Secretary of State for Social Services be facing a charge of being responsible for administering the wrong treatment on the basis of the audit panel and the arrangements laid down by Parliament?
I am glad that the Minister of State is present, because I have had an opportunity of looking briefly at some of his words, which I imagine are of considerable importance, because the Minister of State has more experience than I or the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East in this matter. At Question Time the Minister said:
the cry often goes up about clinical freedom, and we must accept that that is a valid argument."—[Official Report, 24th February 1976; Vol. 906, c. 177.]
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who asked about drug prescription, the Minister of State said:

"I believe that we should carry the medical profession with us on this."—[Official Report, 24th February 1976; Vol. 906, c. 178.]

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East produced no evidence that he was asking to introduce the Bill specifically at the request of a responsible body of the medical profession. The medical profession has taken a sufficient bashing in the past two years without having its freedom further restricted in this way. Doctors are finding that their skills are not being rewarded financially and they are emigrating. Doctors are disgruntled about the Government's attitude over pay-beds.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who, mercifully, has been relieved of her position, could not be considered to be leading us towards a happy doctor-patient relationship. No one would prescribe her as a cure for anything. She could guarantee only high blood pressure, conflict and confrontation.

However well intentioned the Bill may be, it is nevertheless a bad Bill. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Government's rent legislation resulted in shortages of rented accommodation and people staying in hotels at Gatwick Airport costing £600 a week. That was an example of well-intentioned legislation resulting in unfortunate side effects. This Bill would also have unfortunate side effects.

Whilst not doubting the hon. Gentleman's motives, I appeal to the House to take no action until more evidence is produced that this is what the medical profession wants. I ask the House not to give the hon. Gentleman leave to bring in a Bill which would remove from doctors the freedom to practise medicine to the best of their ability.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) :—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 104.

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[4.43 p. m.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
 Buchanan, Richard
 Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Atkinson, Norman
 Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
 Cohen, Stanley


Bates, Alf
 Cant, R. B.
 Concannon, J. D.


Beith, A. J.
 Carmichael, Neil
 Conlan, Bernard


Bidwell, Sydney
 Cartwright, John
 Corbett, Robin


Buchan, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Crawshaw, Richard




Cryer,Bob
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Perry, Ernest


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick Caerwyn


Dormand, J. D.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamond, James
Selby, Harry


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silverman, Julius


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Flannery, Martin
Macfarquhar, Roderick
Snape, Peter


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stallard, A. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stott, Roger


George, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Golding, John
Molloy, William
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Graham, Ted
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Harper, Joseph
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ovenden, John



Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John
Mr. Christopher Price and


Hooson, Emyln
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Michael Ward.


Horam, John 






NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Prior. Rt Hon James


Baker, Kenneth
Hall, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John
Rif kind, Malcolm


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Douglas
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sproat, lain


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Stanley, John


Budgen, Nick
Jones. Arthur (Daventry)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Clerk, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Tapsell, Peter


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tebbit, Norman


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Corrie, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thompson, George


Crawford, Douglas
McCusker, H.
Townsend, Cyril D.


Crouch, David
Macfarlane, Neil
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Davies, Pt Hon J. (Knutslord)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Wakeham, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marten, Neil
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Drayson, Burnaby
Mather, Carol
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Dunlop, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walters, Dennis


Durant, Tony
Mayhew, Patrick
Watt, Hamish


Dykes, Hugh
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Weatherill, Bernard


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Mills, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fairgrieve, Russell
Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mudd, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neave, Airey
Winterton, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Neubert, Michael
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Onslow, Cranley



Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhart, Philip
Penhaligon, David
Mrs. Jill Knight and


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Sir George Young.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike Thomas, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. John Horam, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, Mr. W. E. Garrett and Mr. Brian Gould.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (RESTRICTION OF RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE)

Mr. Mike Thomas: accordingly presented a Bill to restrict the right of medical practitioners to precribe drugs unless certain conditions have been met; and for connected purposes; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th June and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

ORDERS OF TH DAY

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

APPLICATION BY NOT FULLY ELIGIBLE PERSON TO BE TREADTED AS ELIGIBLE

'(1) This section applies to any survivor of the deceased who for some part of the seven years ending with the date of death engaged (whether full-time or part-time) in agricultural work on the holding, being a person in whose case—

(a ) the conditions specified in paragraphs (a )and (c )of the definition of "eligible person" in section 17(3) of this Act are satisfied; and
(b ) the condition specified in paragraph (b )of that definition, though not fully satisfied, is satisfied to some extent.

(2) A person to whom this section applies may within the relevant period apply to the Tribunal for a determination that he is to be treated as an eligibile person for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(3) If on an application under this section—

(a ) the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom this section applies; and
(b ) it appears to the Tribunal that in all the circumstances it would be fair and reasonable for the applicant to be able to apply under section 19 of this Act for a direction entitling him to a tenancy of the holding,

the Tribunal shall determine that he is to be treated as an eligibile person for the purposes of this Part of this Act, but shall otherwise dismiss the application.
(4) In relation to a person in respect of whom the Tribunal have determined as mentioned in subsection (3) above this Part of this Act shall apply as if he were an eligible person, but not so as to require the Tribunal, in making a determination under subsection (2) of section 19 of this Act in his case or a determination under subsection (6) of that section as between him and one or more other applicants under that section, to treat the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b ) above as satisfied in his case to a greater extent than it is in fact satisfied.
(5) A person to whom this section applies may make an application under section 19 of this Act as well as an application under this section; and if the Tribunal determine as mentioned in subsection (3) above in respect of a person who has made an application under, that section, the application under that section shall (without prejudice to subsection (4) above, be treated as made by an eligible person.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(b ) above, cases where the condi-

tion mentioned in subsection (1)(b ) above might be less than fully satisfied include cases where the survivor's agricultural work on the holding fell short of providing him with his principal source of livelihood because the holding was too small.'.'—[Mr. Strang.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With the new clause we are to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.

Mr. Strang: The purpose of the clause is to provide the Agricultural Land Tribunal with discretionary power for the relaxation of the eligibility test, as defined in Clause 17(3)(b ), in certain limited circumstances.
It became clear during the discussions in Committee that the eligibility requirement as to an applicant's work on the deceased tenant's holding was too inflexible and might become a legal ban to applications when in fact it is mainly intended as a guide. The views expressed in the debate ranged from support for retaining the rigid requirement to proposals for departing from the essential link with the holding. Neither of those extremes was acceptable.
We felt that in order to meet two different types of case where potential hardship might arise it would be necessary to introduce a discretionary power, if we could do so without departing from the essential link with the holding, and to leave the matter to the good sense of the tribunal to determine when considering an applicant's agricultural training and experience.
The first type of case which the new conditions are intended to meet is where the father dies before the son has had time to put in five years' work on the holding. The second is that of the near relative who works on the holding but cannot derive his principal source of livelihood from it because it is too small to support him as well as the tenant.
There was a great deal of interest in the Committee particularly in the smaller holding. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick)


and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) both urged that there should be an element of relaxation to account for the situation in which one could not reasonably expect the son to derive a full-time living from the farm, though he had a closer link with it than, say, the son of a tenant with a larger unit who worked on the holding and his intention to succeed was as strong as that of the son with the larger holding. That point is obviously particularly important in Wales, where there are smaller units.
The details of the clause are as follows. Subsection (1) applies the clause to an eligible person as defined in Clause 17(3)(a) and (c ) but who satisfies the principal livelihood test under subsection (3)(b ) only to some extent. Subsection (2) enables a person who meets the requirements of subsection (1) to apply to the tribunal for a determination that he is to be treated as an eligible person for the purposes of Part II.
Subsection (3) enables the tribunal in the case of a person who applies to it under subsection (2) to determine that he is to be treated as an eligible person if it appears to it that
in all the circumstances it would be fair and reasonable for the applicant to be able to apply under section 19 …for a direction entitling him to a tenancy of the holding".
Subsection (4) ensures that a person subject to a determination under subsection (3) is not to be treated as having satisfied the principal source-of-livelihood test to a greater extent than is the case. For example, it will prevent an applicant who has worked on the holding for only two years out of the past seven from claiming that because of a determination by the tribunal under subsection (3) he is to be regarded as having worked there for at least five years. This has particular relevance to the application of the suitability test under Clause 19(8). In the relatively rare circumstances in which there might be more than one applicant, it is naturally critical that the person who does not fully meet the five-year requirement will, all other matters being considered, be at a disadvantage compared with the other applicant.
Subsection (5) ensures that, without prejudice to subsection (4), an application under Clause 19 which is made by a person to whom this clause applies is to

be treated as made by an eligible person. It is envisaged that the doubtful-case applicant will make simultaneous application to the tribunal for a determination as to his eligibility and a direction entitling him to the tenancy.
Subsection (6) gives as an example, for the guidance of the tribunal, the case of the holding which is too small to allow an applicant to have derived his principal source of livelihood from it. This case is the most likely to arise under these provisions, but it might not be readily apparent to the tribunal without guidance.

Mr. Francis Pym: The House is already aware that we on the Opposition benches believe that as a generality Part II is already drawn too wide, in regard to the range of relations of the deceased whom it covers. We have felt that it is wide in its provisions for eligibility, and we still have reservations about that part of Clause 17 which deals with the nature of a training course that an applicant may have undertaken or be undertaking.
The clause widens even further the eligibility element, and we are not in favour of that, although we recognise that there is a problem that has not been considered previously in regard to the relative, the son or other possible successor, of a deceased tenant who is working on a holding that does not employ two people or could not sustain two people working in it full time. That matter should certainly be considered.
I am not sure that I think that the case of the relative of the deceased tenant who had not had the chance to fulfil the five-year requirement is strong. Obviously, that would be very bad luck on a relative, but, after all, Part II is already widening opportunities in a way never previously envisaged.
5.0 p.m.
In the original consultation document which the Minister was kind enough to send me in confidence just before the new clauses were published, nothing like this new clause was considered. Indeed, at that time, one of the conditions for eligibility was that the applicant should have worked on the holding for not less than five years, and there followed in brackets the words "full time". Both the National Farmers' Union and the


Country Landowners Association thought that the word should have been "included" so as not to widen the eligibility clause too far. At any rate it is reasonable to suggest that some special consideration should be given to the type of holding on which two full-time men cannot be provided for out of the earnings.
My hon. Friends and I do not feel that new Clause 1 is satisfactorily drafted or the right way of proceeding, if only because it is very widely worded. The first line refers to any survivor of the deceased who for "some part" of the seven years, has been employed. But it does not define whether that period can be in one part or two parts or more, or what part of the seven years would be adequate to fulfil that condition.
In brackets in the second line is the phrase "whether full-time or part-time". In the case cited by the Minister, "part-time" is the only possible phrase; if they were full-time, the holding would be one which could sustain two full-time people. That is a vague and indeterminate way of phrasing.
Subsection (1)(b) uses the words:
though not fully satisfied, is satisfied to some extent.
What is "some extent"? Clearly, opinions can vary on a reasonable interpretation of those words. It is our view that this is altogether too vague a direction to give to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for determining cases of this kind. It opens the door too wide to a variety of interpretations and therefore goes far beyond what the Government themselves originally envisaged and certainly beyond what was envisaged by the interested parties with whom the Government discussed this matter. Both the NFU and the NLA feel that the new clause goes too wide.
It is unsatisfactory in a matter of this kind to give the land tribunal such an uncertain remit. After all, clause 17(3) is pretty specific. It will be simple and straightforward for the tribunal to identify and establish whether the conditions in paragraphs (a ), (b )and (c )have been fulfilled. But that is not the position with this new clause. People will have to go to a judgment in these matters and clearly there will be different judgments in different cases.

This category of relations of a deceased tenant should have some consideration, but the new clause is too vague and too wide. I ask the Government to take it away and think about it in the light of what other hon. Members will say, and to bring forward a new clause to deal with the matter in a more specific way. We can reconsider it when it returns to this House.
I think that the House will feel that, although reasonable in its intention, the new clause is unsatisfactory in its drafting and will open the gate too wide and be too loose in capability of interpretation by the tribunal. I ask the Government to take the new clause away and to bring forward another to deal with the point.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I hope that the Government will do nothing of the sort. We on this side have pressed for consideration of the possibility of death occurring before the eligibility criteria had been fulfilled. I hope that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is not suggesting that that is an unnecessary case. If death occurs before the end of the seven years, we think it is only just that the son and the other people who qualify should be so considered. A discretionary clause is the only answer.
There is another reason for such a clause. Having set up a tribunal and given it fairly good guidelines under the major Act, we should give it the task of deciding on these issues. That is the point of arbitration.
Also, we support the concept that a problem faces us when a holding is too small to maintain two full-time workers. This leads to all sorts of structural and amalgamation problems, but it is manifestly correct as a principle of social justice to cover the situation in this Bill. This applies particularly to the situation in Wales. I am surprised that no member of Plaid Cymru is here. If anything, this is to the benefit of the small farmer in Wales more than to that of anyone else.
The definition of "survivor of the deceased" is covered in Clause 17, which does not define survivor but does define "eligible person". The eligible person is the wife or husband, brother or sister, child and so on of the deceased.
We raised in Committee the question of the farm worker who had been working on the holding over a length of time and whose whole livelihood depended on the continuation of his employment. We asked for consideration of the relationships which spring up, especially between a single worker and a family on a holding. It may be that, in general law, a survivor of the deceased means a relative. Perhaps it is a legalised kind of relative, like a foster child.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: He could marry the farmer's daughter.

Mr. Buchan: I understand that they do legalise the association sometimes.

Mr. Hooson: It is an old Welsh method.

Mr. Buchan: I had hoped that the question of the farm worker might have been reconsidered. If "survivor" is not defined but "eligible person" is, perhaps the Bill should be more closely defined in the other place. I urge the Government to do so. It is important to secure the good will of the entire agricultural community.
I do not accept what the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said. The wording is not too wide. I am doubtful about line 18, which says that the tribunal
… shall determine that he is to be treated as an eligible person for the purposes of this Part of this Act, but shall otherwise dismiss the application.
There is a certain ambivalence in that wording, which suggests that, having been treated as eligible, they shall then be dismissed. But the clause is not too wide. On the contrary, some of us believe that it is too narrow and that the problem of the farm worker should have been considered. Otherwise I welcome it.

Sir David Renton: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) about the drafting of the clause—not so much from the point of view of the substance as from the point of view of the form and style, which must be reconsidered. Some extremely vague expressions are used. How they will be regarded in the Fens or in the Welsh hill country, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) may be able to tell us. I should have

thought that this is essentially the kind of matter in which Parliament should try to get its meaning clear and clearly expressed.
In this new clause there are expressions which, to say the least, are rather unusual in any statute. For example:
Being a person in whose case the condition specified in paragraph (b )of that definition, though not fully satisfied, is satisfied to some extent".
There is the same kind of vagueness in the last lines of subsection (4):
To treat the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b ) above as satisfied in his case to a greater extent than it is in fact satisfied".
In the last three lines we find this expression, which may cause the mind to boggle a bit:
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(b ) above cases where the condition mentiond in sub-section (1)(b ) above might be less than fully satisfied include cases where the survivor's agricultural work on the holding fell short of providing him with his principal source of livelihood because the holding was too small.
I have no doubt that the Government have in mind the substance of what they intend. But while the last words of that quotation are perfectly plain, the lead up to them is unnecessarily verbose. We find three places where in the circumstances envisaged in this new clause the person to whom the section applies is to be "treated as an eligible person".
We are being asked to make an artificial assumption. A legal fiction is being set up. In discussions and in some of the evidence given to the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, it was said that artificial assumption, or using the words "may be treated as" or "deemed to be" and so on, should be avoided because they are artificial and give rise to difficulties of interpretation.
Having made that somewhat destructive criticism of the new clause, I shall make a more constructive suggestion for overcoming these difficulties. I doubt seriously whether the Government need this as a new clause at all to carry out the intentions they have in mind. I am not a parliamentary draftsman and I am not pretending to draft, but I think that if the Minister will alter or add to the definition of eligible persons in Clause 17(3) he might very well be able to arrive at the substance of the new clause, and do so in a much briefer way.


It may be possible to do this. It is an alternative which should be considered.
In any event I feel most unhappy about the way in which the clause is drafted—quite apart from the substance of it, as to which I agree with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire—and I urge the Government to reconsider it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Hooson: I support the principle behind the new clause, although I share to a considerable extent the criticisms of its drafting made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir David Renton). I agree with the suggestion that it might be possible to have a much simpler and neater way of including these two particular categories in the eligible persons provision by extending the definition provision. However, I certainly intend to support the clause in the hope that the Minister, who is always sensible about these matters, will have it looked at by the parliamentary draftsman with a view to simplifying the matter in another place. In that sense the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire made a valuable contribution to the debate.
In the new clause the Minister has met basically the criticism made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) who, together with me, represent an area with many small farms. I remember a public inquiry some years ago in our area, held to consider the eligibility of certain farms for help by the Rural Development Board, and rural man-days came into it. It was amazing how many farms supported only one man instead of two, even though they needed more help.
It is quite common in my constituency for a young man to leave school and stay at home to help his father on the farm for a couple of years, then to do other work such as agricultural contracting, working on another farm or working in a garage as a mechanic, and helping at home on the farm in the evenings. Therefore I appreciate the need for the words "whether full-time or part-time" in the second sentence of the new clause. This is perfectly understandable and is necessary to meet the situation.
We are dealing with a relatively small number of people—the number of persons whose fathers die before fulfilling the five-year requirement will be relatively small. But it would be unjust if they were not included under the umbrella of the provisions. If legislation can provide for succession, it should do so.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of State, who will wind up the debate, will give sympathetic consideration to what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has said. I am grateful for his support. We are trying to help. We are not trying to be penal in our approach. I welcome his constructive suggestion.

Mr. Hooson: Generally, I am in favour of such provisions as would enable the tribunal to have regard to all the circumstances and to decide whether the case is fair and reasonable. I do not think we entrust to our judges and tribunals of this kind sufficient discretion. The pride of this country has been the common law, worked out by precedent following principle, and people do not act in an arbitrary way—either judges or laymen—when they are entrusted with the job of deciding something such as the circumstances outlined here. They will be very careful to be fair and reasonable, and they are not likely to be taken for a ride by someone who is trying to use the provisions.
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to see that justice is done for a relatively small number of people. In my part of the world that number will, of course, be much higher than in other parts. I am very glad the Minister is going to look at the clause again. Nevertheless, we support him in principle.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: We seem to have had a number of new clauses in the course of our debates on the Bill. It is difficult to count them, and I was astonished to see another on the Amendment Paper today. It shows, however, that the Minister and the Department have been responsive to the persuasion brought upon them, and that is as it should be. The Minister has been criticised from the Opposition Benches for having weakened, but that is


not so. This is the way in which legislation should proceed so that where a need can be proved it can be taken into account.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that the clause was drafted to widely, but he did not explain why and he is overlooking the fact that we are seeking only to give a person the right to be considered by an agricultural lands tribunal, not an absolute right of succession. The final judgment will rest with the tribunal, contrary to the view of many hon. Members. Hardship has to be proven and the tribunal will consider that.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and I represent many holdings in our part of Wales which are too small to support two working persons, male or female, and too small to have a second residence on the holding. People have written to me, many of them the sons of those who operate the holdings. asking whether they will be eligible. Without the new clause many would not have been eligible. They are living away from the holding because these is no accommodation for them upon it, and they are working only part-time upon it. They have another full-time occupation. They cannot qualify under the minimum five-year rule, but their part-time hours may well total in excess of five years. Thanks to the clause they will be considered. The clause will introduce more flexibility, and it is right not to draw the line to hard and fast.
I should like to see the Minister issue fairly comprehensive guidelines to the agricultural land tribunals to ensure that there is a fairly consistent approach to decisions throughout the country. Now that the clause has introduced an element of flexibility a fall-back position can be offered by which guidance could be given to the tribunals.

Sir David Renton: In asking for guidelines to be issued to a tribunal, has the hon. Member overlooked the fact that it is an independent judicial body which should not act in accordance with directives from Ministers? The nearest one could get to that would be some kind of statutory instrument laid before Parliament, and in that case Parliament would be amplifying its instructions to the tribunal on how it should exercise its

jurisdiction. On reflection does the hon. Member think it would be wise to press that point?

Mr. Roderick: Yes, I do. My intention is that any guidelines should be submitted to Parliament. The Minister will certainly not issue them independently. He would express the spirit of what he is seeking to do and would certainly indicate to the tribunals the approach that he would hope they would take. Without that I can foresee a great disparity in the approach by tribunals in various parts of the country.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has the hon. Member considered that the disparities that might occur throughout the country may well be a reflection of local conditions? The would be immensely important.

Mr. Roderick: The disparities could also reflect a different outlook on the part of the tribunal, and that might not simply be due to local conditions. I am most anxious about local conditions. We have been seeking to insert certain provisions in the Bill but have been told that they would be unsuitable for certain parts of the country. I maintain, however, that we should respond to the various needs in different parts of the country. That approach is important in the case of Mid-Wales. The clause will not destroy these relationships but will give us a fall-back position in these areas.
The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was critical not so much of the principle of the clause as of the drafting. I hope that if the Minister can give an assurance that he will tighten up on the drafting, the clause will be universally accepted and added to the Bill.

Mr. W. Benyon: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). It is not a variation in the different parts of the country which will produce the situation to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) referred but the complications of the Bill. It proves that when Parliament embarks upon legislation such as this, it will run into great difficulties. The most important thing about landlord and tenant law is that it should be clearly understood by all concerned. The trouble with the clause is that it makes the position even


more vague and encourages expectations which may not be fulfilled. That will pay a bad dividend.

Mr. Michaael Jopling: I am never too sure how often we are required by the rules of the House to declare our interest, but perhaps it is right that I should say once again that I am a farmer.
The clause is disappointing. We have felt all along that Part II goes too far and I am disappointed at the extent to which the Government have changed their position in the last few weeks. I am glad that the Minister has been able to be present today because a good deal has happened to affect the way in which this Bill will operate since he first came to the Committee on 3rd February to announce the new clauses.
We accept the difficulties described by the Parliamentary Secretary. He referred to the son whose father dies before the son is old enough to have put in five years' work on the holding. We understand the difficulty of the holding which cannot provide two jobs. It is right to try to deal with these difficulties, but the clause goes a good deal farther than that. It will bring within the scope of Part II a good many people who do not come under either of these guidelines and who have suffered from the early decease of a father or from a holding which will not provide two jobs. Take the young man of 30 whose father dies and where the holding will provide a good many more than two jobs. Under these arrangements I understand that he would be able to become an eligible person although he had virtually no experience in agriculture. I stress the way in which the qualification has been eroded over the past few weeks.
Originally, the provision was that the applicant must have worked on the farm for five years of the previous seven. However, three of those years could have been spent on an agriculture course at an educational establishment. That meant that, for example, the young man could have spent three years reading agriculture at university, two years working on the farm and two years doing something quite different from farming.
5.30 p.m.
The Government now say that his years at an academic institution need not be

for the purpose of reading agriculture. The position is that the young man could have gone to university for three years to read Arabic studies, or something else divorced from agriculture. He could then have done something totally different from agriculture for two years, and then spent two years working on the farm.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the young man may have read economics, for example, which could make a useful contribution to farming. Alternatively, as I did, he could have taken a geology degree. That would enable him to understand soil structure rather better. We must not be too dogmatic on this issue.

Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman will know that part of my university course, at his university, was involved in reading geology. I understand that part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. However, a young man could take a course which had nothing remotely to do with agriculture. I suggested Arabic studies as that came immediately to mind.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must be wrong on this issue. One of the most distinguished young farmers in my constituency, who was featured in the middle pages of The Times a fortnight ago, read history. He is the leader of the young farmers in his area. After reading history he went back to the farm. He is the son not of a tenant farmer but of an owner-occupier. Surely we should not discourage that sort of thing.

Mr. Jopling: I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to listen to the rest of my argument. The position has been eroded as regards the academic course, and the Government contemplate yet another erosion. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) will bear in mind that the implication of the clause is that a young man can spend a minimum period, even a part-time period, during the two years that he was supposed to be involving himself in agriculture working on the farm. If we accept the clause the position will be that the young man could have spent two years doing nothing whatever related to agriculture, three years at a university reading something that had nothing to do with agricultural studies or farming management, and the remaining two of


the seven years involving himself to some extent in agriculture on a part-time basis. I am sure that the Minister will agree that is a major erosion of the suggestions which he made in Committee on 3rd February.

Mr. Buchan: Before we decide what weight to put upon the hon. Gentleman's argument, will he tell us whether he accepts the principle of the clause? If not, it is clear that he will attack everything. In order that we may judge his argument on this one issue objectively, will he tell us whether he accepts the principle of the clause?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has been making similar remarks throughout the course of our discussions. At the beginning of my remarks I said that, in view of the way in which this legislation is now framed, we accept that there is a case for doing something for the young man whose father died prematurely or who is interested in a holding which will not provide two jobs. I have said that before and I do not want to say it again.
We feel that the clause goes much too far. We tabled an amendment which Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, has not called, but that does not prevent us referring to its contents. The significance of the amendment is that it had the full support of the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. During the past few months the Minister has spent a good deal of time telling us that these provisions had the support of the NFU. Our amendment has behind it the weight of opinion of both those professional bodies.
We felt that the Agricultural Land Tribunal should not determine that a person is to be treated as eligible if, in the seven years referred to in Clause 17(2), he was engaged in agricultural work on the holding for fewer than five years. For the purpose of this provision, any period spent by that person attending a course, such as is mentioned in Clause 17(4), shall be treated as time engaged in agricultural work on the holding, but not more than three years in all shall be so treated.
The Minister in Committee laid down the guidelines which led him to present the new clauses. It is significant and im-

portant to remind him of the words that he used on that occasion:
 It will enable a close relative of a deceased tenant who has the requisite agricultural experience, health and financial standing to run the farm efficiently, and who has worked on the farm for a significant period of years …".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 3rd February 1976, c. 420.]
We have moved a long way since the right hon. Gentleman said that. The Government's position, as a result of their new proposals, is totally different from that which the right hon. Gentleman set out to us only three months ago.
I agree with a good deal that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said. I believe that this provision puts the Agricultural Land Tribunal in a difficult position. I do not understand how it will decide what is described in line 14 as "fair and reasonable".

Mr. Hooson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am for giving the tribunal discretion. I think it can interpret what is fair and reasonable.

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe that the tribunal will find it extremely difficult to decide what is fair and reasonable. I do not believe any guidelines or procedures have been laid down. What will be the position of the landlord if an applicant claims that he has been working part-time on the farm? It seems to be a terribly vague matter. To what extent will the landlord be able to test the applicant? It seems that a young man who has done no more than help occasionally at harvest, or at weekends to bring in the cows, will be able to claim that he has worked part-time on the holding.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that the Government should take away the clause and redraft it with a view to dealing with the two provisos to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will take it away and reconsider it in that vein.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I think that the House has had a useful debate in that it has been an extension of the close consideration which was given


to this measure in Committee in 25 sittings.
In introducing the new clause, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the aim was to give the Agricultural Land Tribunal discretion to relax the eligibility test relating to an applicant's principal source of livelihood in Clause 17(3)(b ). The effect would be to allow a near relative who does not fully meet the requirements of the test to apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for a determination that he is to be treated as an eligible person for the purposes of Part 2 of the legislation.
The point was clearly made today, as well as in Committee, that the eligibility requirement regarding an applicant working on the deceased tenant's holding was too inflexible and might become a legal ban to application when it was intended only as a guide. The views expressed today, as well as in Committee, clearly indicate the anxiety of Members on these points.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who made similar criticisms to those made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, said that he agreed with the reasonable intention of the clause, but expressed concern about what he called bad drafting.
I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was against theclause. I suspect that, in a sense, he supported it, except for the drafting. However, he expressed anxiety regarding the flexibility given to the Agricultural Land Tribunal and whether it went beyond the bounds of reason.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) expressed support for the clause but asked us to recognise the need to define it a little more clearly. Again, he was concerned that the problems of the farm worker should be considered. My hon. Friend suggested that we should reconsider some of the drafting aspects as well as the intention of the clause generally.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that he supported the clause in principle but expressed anxiety about relatives who were identified with the farm who would suffer hardship and might be excluded under certain aspects where there was a

marginal eligibility to continue in succession. I think that point, which was also made by other hon. Members, is in keeping with my right hon. Friend's intention regarding succession which was made clear in Committee. The Government are concerned about succession and hardship.

Mr. Hooson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that concern centres upon the definition of part-time working? Is intermittent part-time working sufficient, or must it be sustained or fairly consistent? If the team of Ministers could deal with that problem in another place, I think that would meet the point.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making the point which I think justifies the clause. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, it recognises that the problem of eligibilty must be left to the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) referred to the legal factors which must be borne in mind when the tribunal takes account of the these aspects. The anxiety of the House, as well as of the Government, is that we should give a degree of flexibility, but that it should not go too far.
5.45 p.m.
It is essential, as my right hon. Friend has said on a number of occasions, that we keep the balance of interest between the landlord and tenant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) recognised my right hon. Friend's reasonableness in these matters, and he also welcomed the clause. His brief reference to some of his constituents' questions showed the need for the ALT to be able to adjudicate. The point of the clause is that the ALT must have some flexibility without going too far.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) said that the legislation may create certain problems. All legislation creates problems. On the other hand, the aim of legislation should be to lay down guidelines on which judgments may be made.
We should recognise that good landlords have been behaving in accordance with the principles which have been put


into this measure. Many farmers have tenants whose families have been on the holdings for many years. Indeed, in Committee the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) referred to the time during which he and his family had been connected with the farm with which he is now associated.
There are bound to be areas of uncertainty. There will be cases of sons, relatives, and others who may want or expect to inherit. I think that the industry will welcome the guidelines which have been put into the Bill.
The hon. Member for Westmorland referred to amendments which were not called and expressed a view which he felt justified the tabling of these amendments.
In Committee, during our detailed consideration of Clause 17—New Clause 8, as it was—criticisms were made of the inflexibility of the succession provisions because they would not apply where holdings were too small to provide the principal livelihood for two men or where the son had been unable fully to meet the five-year qualifying period at the time of his father's death. Strong pleas were expressed by hon. Members on both

sides in Committee, and again today, that these two requirements should be relaxed to some extent. As I have explained, the clause seeks to give certain measure of discretion to the ALT to meet those criticisms.

The hon. Member for Westmorland pointed out that the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union are concerned because in the scheme, the underlying concept of which is the alleviation of hardship, the main test of eligibility which establishes the hardship could be weakened to an undesirable extent as no limit is placed on the discretion to be given to the tribunal. That point has been echoed elsewhere. We are willing to consider that point, but we cannot make any commitment at this stage. We shall bear in mind the constructive points which have been made by hon. Members on both sides.

I hope that the House will support the new clause in view of the assurances which I have given.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 86.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[5.50 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Dormand, J. D.
Lamont, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dunn, James A.
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Litterick, Tom


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank


Bates, Alf
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Macfarquhar, Roderick


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Millan, Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Molloy, William


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Moonman, Eric


Buchanan, Richard
George, Bruce
Moyle, Roland


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Golding, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Campbell, Ian
Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike


Carmichael, Neil
Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orbach, Maurice


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Clemitson, Ivor
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Ovenden, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pardoe, John


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie


Concannon, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Conlan, Bernard
Hooson, Emyln
Penhaligon, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Perry, Ernest


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cryer,Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Irvine, RI Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Irving, RI Hon S. (Dartford)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ross, RI Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sandelson, Neville


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Selby, Harry




Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tinn, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Silverman, Julius
Tomney, Frank
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Ward, Michael
Young, David (Bolton E)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Weitzman, David



Spearing, Nigel
White, Frank R. (Bury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Stoddart, David
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. A. W Stallard and


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Peter Snape.


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)






NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Onslow, Cranley


Bell, Ronald
Grist, Ian
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Hall, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Body, Richard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Boacawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hicks, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Braine,Sir Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brotherton, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hurd, Douglas
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sainsbury, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanel'd &amp; W'df'd)
Shepherd, Colin


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Michael
Sproat, lain


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kershaw, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Stewart, lan (Hitchin)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clegg, Walter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tebbit, Norman


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawrence, Ivan
Townsend, Cyril D.


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Drayson, Burnaby
Macfarlane, Nell
Weatherill, Bernard


Dunlop, John
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Durant, Tony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mudd, David



Forman, Nigel
Heave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Gow, lan (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

GLEBE LAND

'This Part (11 ) of this Act shall not apply to glebe land or to tenancies thereof '.—[Sir David Renton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.0 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to exempt glebe land and tenancies of it from the scope of Part II of the Bill. Glebe land consists of land and buildings which are part of the endowments of a church, but excludes the parsonage and the land and buildings which go with it, such as gardens, garages or stables. Glebe land is owned by the incumbent, the vicar or rector, as a corporation sole. He holds it in trust for himself and his successors.
There are about 30,000 acres of glebe land in England and much of it is farmed

by incumbents. I do not know if there are any statistics—if the Ministry has the figures it would be interesting to hear them—but my guess, from casual observation, is that about two-thirds of glebe land is tenanted.
There are two good reasons for excluding glebe land from the scope of Part II of the Bill. It is unnecessary to include it because clergy can be relied upon to act compassionately—indeed, in a Christian manner—when a tenant of glebe land dies and there is a suitable member of his family to carry on the farm. I hope this will appeal to the Minister of State who was a Church Commissioner and a pillar of the Anglican Church. This has nothing to do with his surname.
My second reason for excluding glebe land is that, unfortunately, the law relating to the ownership of glebe land during the time when a benefice is vacant is in an unsatisfactory state. The diocesan board of finance can become the owner, though only if the parish council passes a resolution asking the board to become the owner and the board agrees. The patron of the living or the bishop might


become the owner instead. The question of ownership during a vacant benefice can take quite a long time to resolve. There would be the most appalling muddle, probable litigation and hardship if a tenant died when a benefice was vacant and the possibility of Part II of the Bill applying were to arise. We ought to envisage the possibility of such a situation and try to avoid the confusion which would arise.
Whoever becomes the owner of glebe land during an interregnum is likely to be a person or group of people living at a distance and not knowing the land or the deceased tenant's family well enough to make a decision. It would be very much better if the provisions of Part II did not apply in these circumstances and that the matter were to be left, as it is now, until the living were filled. There is not often a long delay during an interregnum and this would simplify matters considerably.
My second reason for suggesting that the scope of Part II should not be extended to glebe land is, perhaps, the stronger. If the Bill is to apply to glebe land, it would not be right to leave in its present state the law relating to ownership of glebe land during a vacant benefice. It should be amended to introduce a much quicker procedure for securing ownership of the glebe land, even temporarily, during a vacant benefice. This Bill is not the right place to amend this rather elaborate part of ecclesiastical law. The best way to avoid trouble is to omit glebe land from the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Bishop: I hope the right hon. and learned Member will forgive me if I say I am a little puzzled about the reason for his amendment, which, I am sure, is meant to be helpful, as was shown by the way in which he moved it. I am grateful for his explanation, but I cannot see why glebe land should be exempted from the family succession scheme.
Perhaps I should declare an interest, though not a financial or pecuniary interest. I am a Church Commissioner and was at one time Second Estates Commissioner in this House.
This land is the property of the incumbent of the benefice to which it belongs. I understand that many thousands of acres are let on normal

agricultural tenancies. The land is either run by the incumbents themselves or by the diocese, and it may be that the latter arrangement will become more general in future if Parliament accepts certain proposals approved by the Synod. I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of those proposals. The rent from these acres is part of the stipends of the incumbents concerned.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that the clergy can be relied on to act compassionately, and no one doubts that, but it is also true of many other landowners and also of the Church Commissioners themselves, who have a statutory link with Parliament for exercising their trusteeship for a considerable amount—perhaps 160,000 acres or more —of agricultural land, although here I speak from memory.
My right hon Friend's intention in the Bill is to regularise the custodianship or the responsible way in which good landlords, including the Church Commissioners, have been exercising their responsibilities for many years, including, of course, their acceptance of family succession. I think that many good landlords have tenants and their families who have been in occupation of their land for a considerable time. I do not see how the provisions of the family succession scheme need interfere with these arrangements in any way. Indeed, I believe that they help the situation by laying down guidelines. They do not alter the ownership of the land—an important point—or its status as tenanted land.
They are concerned with the succession to the holding. That is the point which matters here. Each succession will be a new tenancy, and provision is made in Clause 22 for arbitration on variations in the terms of the tenancy and a fresh rent. I cannot see, therefore, that the incumbents concerned will be affected by the Bill in any way differently from other landlords, and I regret that I cannot accept that a valid case has been made out for the new clause.

Sir David Renton: I shall not press the motion to a Division, but I do not retract at all from what I said, although I am grateful to the Minister of State for his explanation, which coincides broadly with my own view of the matter. However, I still cannot see the need for applying the Bill to glebe land, bearing


in mind the kind attitude of incumbents. I have discussed this part of the Bill with representatives of farmers in my constituency. They do not see the need for this part of the Bill in general. The complexity of the provisions cannot be doubted, and to impose upon incumbents an obligation to follow them, when they could perfectly well continue as they have done in the past, and give complete satisfaction to tenant farmers, is quite unnecessary. There is no need to compel them in this way. However, in order to make progress and in view of the, no doubt, sincere attitude of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

SAVING FOR INHERITANCE (PROVISION FOR FAMILY AND DEPENDANTS) ACT 1975

'None of the provisions of this Part (II ) of this Act shall adversely affect any person's rights already accrued or which may accrue in future under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and in the event of a conflict between an Order of the Court made under that Act and a grant or refusal of a tenancy by a landlord, or the failure of an eligible person to claim or to accept a tenancy, or a direction of the Tribunal under this part of this Act, the Order of the Court shall prevail'.—[Sir David Renton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.15 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 was passed as the replacement of the Inheritance (Family Provisions) Act 1936. It allows the widow or children and certain other dependants to apply to the High Court or the county court for an order that the estate of a deceased person should be distributed not in accordance with his or her will but so as to secure reasonable financial provision for the dependants. This is one of those cases in which the courts are given discretion by Parliament. It is a branch of the law in which the trust given by Parliament to the courts has been fully justified. They have done good work in securing that the widows, children, and so on. have been provided for even where the testator had turned "bloody-minded", to use an expression which was used in Standing Committee.
.
There could easily be a conflict, in spite of what the Minister of State said in Committee, between the provisions of the will, or the action taken or not taken under the Bill, and an order made by the court under the 1975 Act. In order to convince the Minister I will deal with that point a little more fully, but meanwhile I point out that, if there were such a conflict, confusion, and indeed hardship, could arise which would most probably have to be resolved by litigation or further litigation between members of the same family. That is the situation which we ought to try to avoid if we can possibly do so. Indeed, we have a duty to try.
The simplest way of avoiding it is to say that, where there is such a conflict, the order of the court made under the 1975 Act shall prevail. I am not a trained legislative draftsman; I do not claim to have the drafting of the new clause right in detail; but I suggest that the principle is clear enough, in the way I have expressed it, and I hope that the Government will not dare to reject the new clause merely because it is technically defective in drafting. If the principle is accepted, the drafting can be improved in another place.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) proposed a similar clause, but he was told by the Minister of State that there is no conflict between the 1975 Act and the provisions of the Bill because the Act applies only to the deceased's estate and the tenancy of a farm is not part of the deceased's estate. That point of view is maintained by the hon. Gentleman in spite of the provisions of Clause 19, especially subsection (4), which is very important in relation to this matter. It says:
If the applicants under this section include a person validly designated by the deceased in his will as the person he wished to succeed him as tenant of the holding, the Tribunal shall first make a determination under subsection (2) above as regards that person,"—
that is merely the determination that the person is an eligible person—
and shall do so as regards the other applicant or each of the other applicants only if the Tribunal determine that the person so designated is not in their opinion a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding"—
We reach this simple position, therefore. There is no question of what is


"fair and reasonable", as there was in the case of the Government's clause earlier. If the person designated in the will is eligible and suitable, under Clause 19(5) the tribunal must make a direction in his favour.

Mr. Mark Hughes: As I understood it, the tribunal must make a direction in his favour vis-à-vis alternative claimants to the tenancy to be considered by it at a later stage. It is not that the tribunal must make a decision in his favour vis-à-vis the tenancy itself. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify my mind about that?

Sir David Renton: It is the Bill that will clarify the hon. Gentleman's mind. In Clause 19(5), we find these words:
If under the preceding provisions of this section only one applicant is determined by the Tribunal to be in their opinion a suitable person to become the tenant of the holding"—
and one must add, and that applicant has been designated by will—
the Tribunal shall …subject to section 20 of this Act, give a direction entitling that applicant to a tenancy of the holding".
I must also point out the contents of subsections (11) and (12), because they endorse the position that I am describing. Subsection (11) says:
For the purposes of subsection (10)"—
that is the one which mentions the making of a will or codicil—
a statement which is framed so as to designate as mentioned in paragraph (b )of that subsection different persons in different circumstances"—
this is the point which the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) was making—
shall be taken to satisfy that paragraph if, in the events which have happened, the statement exclusively designates a particular person.
Subsection (12) reads:
A direction under this section given in favour of a person by reason of his being a person validly designated by the deceased as mentioned in subsection (4) above shall be valid"—
here is where a conflict can arise with the 1975 Act—
even if the probate or administration by virtue of which he was such a person at the giving of the direction is subsequently revoked or varied
What is more, it can only be subsequently revoked or varied by an order

of the court, and that order of the court is likely to be made under the 1975 Act rather than under any other legislation.
It means that when the Minister was advised, as apparently he was in Committee, and when he wrote afterwards to my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge that there was no conflict, that point appears to have been overlooked. Whether it is overlooked or not, I suggest that the opportunity to farm, say, 500 acres is a much more valuable asset for a tenant to bequeath than an estate of even £20,000 or £30,000.
By this part of the Bill Parliament is being asked to create an entirely new right. It has never come into our law before. I am not challenging that right, whatever may be my views about the creation of a new inherited right of this kind, but the Government, having created that new right, should consider more carefully than they have the consequences of doing so. They should either amend the 1975 Act so as to treat the inheritance of a tenancy as part of the deceased's estate or acknowledge that a conflict can arise in the way that I have mentioned. Surely, one or other of those steps should be taken, and conceivably both.
There is an obvious disadvantage, which I concede at once, in providing that inherited tenancies should be regarded as assets in the ordinary way. They might then attract capital transfer tax, which, we have been assured, the provisions of Part II of the Bill would not do. I do not wish to walk into that trap or to invite anyone else to do so.
I have, therefore, opted for the easier of the two solutions to deal with this conflict. Where there is a conflict, the order of the court, made under the 1975 Act shall prevail, and it shall prevail over the grant or refusal of a tenancy by a landlord under Part II or the failure of an eligible person to claim or to accept a tenancy or a direction of the tribunal under Part II That seems to be a simple, sensible and easy way out of the dilemma from the legislative point of view which gives no rise to trouble and which avoids the doubts that could arise and might have to be resolved by litigation within the family if we did nothing about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge pointed out that a widow or other dependant of the deceased might suffer. I think that he had in mind an example which the Minister gave of the eldest son who might be the only eligible person within the family and who failed to take advantage of the opportunity which Part II gave him and the opportunity which he was given by being designated by his father's will as the person to succeed under the tenancy: My hon. Friend's expression was "let go" his rights under the Bill. I appreciate what my hon. Friend had in mind, but I think that there is a difficulty about solving it. I am prepared to concede that we could not very well write into the Bill mandatory provisions requiring the son to take up the tenancy if he did not wish to, even though that would mean that a valuable right within the family would be rejected. That would be an unnecessary interference with freedom. We cannot force people into occupations that they do not wish to have, or make them suffer if they will not enter into those occupations.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge, therefore, I do not make part of my case the point which he advanced in Committee. I base my case on the fact that the Government are creating an important and valuable new right which is of tremendous value.
There is no question of the tribunal having to decide what is fair and reasonable. The tribunal must give a decision if the simple conditions under Clause 19 are satisfied. That could leave the widow in a difficult position. It could cause trouble within the family. It could cause conflicts between the decision of the tribunal and that of the court. I think that it is far better for all concerned to try to anticipate that and to resolve it by saying that in such circumstances the order of the court shall prevail.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I listened with great interest to what the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has just said. Perhaps the Minister of State, not this evening but, if necessary, by correspondence, could address his mind to the possibility of what in the tax law became known as

the "Franco System" of avoiding capital transfer tax.
Under this new clause, if I were a tenant of a holding, and I made out a will, in a moment of mental aberration, leaving the holding to the Chief Whip of the Labour Party, I should like to feel my natural heirs could, under the terms of the 1975 Act, go to the High Court and claim a prior right over the Chief Whip of my party.
What worries me is that the new clause as drafted, would immediately negate the whole of Part II of the Bill, because it would be open to any tenant, in collusion with his landlord, to overturn the whole intention of these provisions. He could make a foolish will, and it could then be overturned in the certain knowledge that the heir designated, in time, by the court would not care to take up the inheritance. This is the area in which there is a risk of a very complex legal loophole which would enable collusive action to be taken by a landlord and testator to prevent alternative heirs from having a reasonable case considered by the tribunal, for if he made a will which was subject to the family provisions of the 1975 Act, and it was overturned in favour of a single individual, my suspicion is that any alternative heirs, under the provisions as currently drafted in the Bill, could find themselves ruled out of the provisions in the new clause, not just as drafted but as intended. I think a coach and horses could potentially be driven through the whole of Part II of the Bill. I might be totally misinformed and misadvised, but I would be grateful to have the Minister's views on this.

Sir David Renton: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. My intention was exactly the opposite to what he stated.

Mr. Pym: This shows what unexpected and complicated possibilities can emerge if one starts legislating in a matter of this kind, which is certainly, in intention, seeking to alleviate hardships which were thought, on both sides of the House, to exist in a very few cases where sons or relations of the tenant were not given the tenancy of the farm. Dabbling with such complicated legislation as this automatically creates other hardships. The speech of the hon. Member for


Durham (Mr. Hughes) indicated an area where we could get into considerable difficulties. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was on a substantive point.
I speak very much as a layman in legal matters, but the House will remember that during Second Reading I expressed, rather strongly, some grave doubts about whether the Agricultural Land Tribunal was, in all the circumstances, wholly and fitly the appropriate body to take such difficult decisions. It will be dealing with real family problems, and having to make judgments between different people, possibly as to who should succeed, as well as taking into account the relative hardship of the tenant's family and the relation's family, although the latter, unfortunately, in a rather circumscribed way.
I expressed the view, as the Minister will remember, that I thought it might possibly be right for the courts of the land to be involved in taking the decisions rather than the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
In subsequent discussions among the interested bodies outside this House, and my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, the general consensus of view was that in all the circumstances it was right for the Agricultural Land Tirbunal to be responsible for these decisions. That is why it was not challenged to any degree in Committee.
Here, however, we come to a difficulty which might arise, and which was described in detail by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire. That was the possibility of a conflict between members of the same family, and that it might result as a consequence of how a tenant drew his will. That is a perfectly possible situation. A tenant might say, under this Bill, that he wished his son—it could be his daughter —to be his eligible and rightful successor. It might well be that his widow would rather have carried on the holding herself. There would, therefore, be conflict. This is a tragic situation which could happen in a very few cases. As this Bill is designed to try to iron out hardship, even if in a very few cases, it is entirely right that this matter should be thoroughly considered at this stage.
One can visualise that such situations will happen in a few cases if only because the value of the right of succession is considerable these days. It is not an absolutely automatic right. We know that certain conditions have to be fulfilled, but we also know, from the way the Bill has been presented by the Government and from what has been said about it, that there will be cases where, one can see clearly beforehand, some member of the tenant's family will be able to enjoy these rights when there will not be any hardship on the other side. One can imagine all sorts of situations, but it will be fairly certain that some members of the tenant's family will be able to take over the holding when he dies and, one can imagine that, however unfortunate the circumstances, there could be a conflict in the family.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-superMare): I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's use of the word "value" but would he also take the point that this is a value of desire, rather than of money, for the simple reason that once the incoming person becomes a tenant he is paying a current market rent, or at least will be, within three years. The prospect of the value of a tenancy being eligible for taxation would possibly be damaged under the concept of this Bill, not to mention all the damage it will do to a tenant's family.

Mr. Pym: I take my hon. Friend's point and I am grateful to him. The value is that some member of the family will enjoy being able to farm the holding for the rest of his life. This is where the value lies. It is not a money value, but involves the earning capability on the value of assets belonging to somebody else.
In these circumstances, if there is some kind of conflict within a family, I feel strongly that it would be right for a court to be involved in this matter. As worthy as are the members of agricultural land tribunals, I hope that the decision of the court will be overriding. Therefore, I support all my right hon. and learned Friend said.

Mr. Bishop: The House is indebted to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for the constructive way in which he dealt with the clause. We are dealing with a possible


conflict between the succession provisions of the present Bill and the provisions of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This matter was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stain-ton) and it is now, in a somewhat different form, being raised again. I shall in a moment refer to a letter which I sent to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge on this topic.
I wish to emphasise that this matter has been carefully considered, and I must reiterate that the Government feel that no such conflict need be feared. The rights of a person to whom the Inheritance Act applies are basically to apply for an order of the court for further provision from the estate of a deceased person and to receive payments or property out of the estate of the deceased should the court so order. I wish to stress the words "estate of the deceased" The new tenancy which a successful applicant may obtain under the succession provision does not derive from the estate of the deceased. I think that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), who asked whether a relative could overturn a tenancy through the provisions of the 1975 Act. The point is that the tenancy is not part of the deceased person's estate.
The grant or refusal of a tenancy by a landlord cannot conflict with an order of the court under the Inheritance Act in relation to this part of this Bill, any more than the action of a landlord in voluntarily granting a new tenancy outside the provisions of the Bill can conflict with such an order. That is the position that would apply at present. This is an action of a third party outside the scope of the order.
It is true to say that the failure of an eligible person to claim or accept a tenancy cannot conflict with an Inheritance Act order. Such action naturally is open to an eligible person. Nobody can be compelled to take up a farming tenancy if he does not wish to do so and no court order will require this.
I wish to refer briefly to the points I made to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge in Standing Committee on 8th April. I said:
The aim of the Act is to enable a close relative of a deceased person who considers

that he or she has not been reasonably provided for in the deceased's will to enter a claim through the county court or the High Court against the deceased person's estate. I stress the word 'estate'.
I said a little later:
An applicant for a deceased person's tenancy, on the other hand, is applying to take over the tenancy when the deceased person's lease expires, by which time the estate ought in normal circumstances to have been wound up. The two sets of legislation therefore carry on regardless of each other."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 8th April 1976; c. 1144.]
6.45 p.m.
Finally, I wish to stress that a direction of the tribunal will not cause a conflict since the subject matter of that direction does not derive from the estate of the deceased and is not subject to any order of the court under the Inheritance Act.
It is valid to make the point that the succession of a beneficiary to a farming tenancy, either under this Bill or by the voluntary act of a landlord, is a circumstance which could be considered by the court in deciding whether an order should be made under the Inheritance Act, and the extent of that order. This is as it should be, but this is not a circumstance which will be affected or obstructed by the operation of the succession provisions.
I understand the concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire and also by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). I would inform them that I wrote a letter to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge in which I sought to clarify some of these points. I hope that the assurance contained in that letter will be acceptable to the House. I said in the letter:
You may find some reassurance in the fact that the family succession clauses were prepared in close consultation with officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department who were responsible for the promotion of the 1975 Act. There is no question of the 1975 Act provisions having been overlooked when our scheme was drawn up. Quite the contrary. Any positive area of potential conflict no doubt would have come to light in our consultations
I hope that that assurance will prove acceptable and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal will not be pressed.

Sir David Renton: I am exceedingly disappointed by the negative character of the Minister's reply. I do not doubt that


careful consideration has been given to the matter by those advising the Minister, and indeed by those advising the Lord Chancellor. However, I do not agreee with the conclusions reached. I am not being arrogant when I say that 1 am as entitled to my opinion as are those eminent people who advise the Government, and I am not entirely without legal and legislative experience.
What is so strange about the situation is the conclusion which has been reached—namely, that the two sets of legislation "carry on regardless of each other". In my opinion that is just what they should not be allowed to do. I agree that under the present definition of "the estate of the deceased" the designation by will of a tenancy is not part of that estate. That point is clear. But we can-not get away from the fact that some-thing which is often much more valuable than the estate of deceased farmers is being created, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has so vividly pointed out, by the provisions of Part II. It is not good enough for the Government merely to fall back on the law as it was before the Government introduced this new concept and ask Parliament to accept it.
Clause 19(12) gives away the Government's case. It provides that:
A direction. given in favour of a person … validly designated by the deceased …
—that is, by will—
shall be valid even if the probate or administration by virtue of which he was such a person at the giving of the direction is subsequently revoked or varied.

Division No. 124.]
AYES
6.53 p.m.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan


Bell, Ronald
Forman, Nigel
Le Merchant Spencer


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lester. Jim (Beeston)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Body, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macfarlane, Nell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hall, Sir John
Mayhew, Patriot


Braine,Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Moate, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Airey


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Bulmer, Esmond
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hurd, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Cope, John
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Tim


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin

The Government should welcome the clarity which the new clause would give. The matter is left in some doubt in my mind as the result of subsection (12) alone. We cannot deny that there is conflict of interest. There may not be a conflict of legislative expression, but there could be a conflict of interest resulting from the legislative expression. Where there is such a conflict of interest we have a duty to consider it and to try to resolve it. The easy way to resolve it is by saying that an order of the court under the 1975 Act shall prevail.

I feel so strongly about this matter that I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby. If the Government had shown any sign of taking the point I should naturally have agreed to its being considered further in another place, but there is no sign that the Government have taken the point. They seem to be prepared to allow con-fusion to prevail, which is regrettable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire said, the Bill in any event can apply only to relatively few cases, and the number of cases of possible conflict between the decision of the court under the 1975 Act and the position under the Bill will be fewer still.

I am very disappointed. If, even now, the Minister of State says that he will consider the point further I shall not press for a Division but, failing that, I must.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 127.

Stanbrook, Ivor
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Young, Sir G. (Ealling, Acton)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)



Stradling Thomas, J.
Weatherill, Bernard
TFELLERS FOR THE AYES


Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Carol Mather and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Townsend, Cyril D.






NOES


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John (Bragg &amp; Scun)
Orbach, Maurice


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Fred (Caerphl)ly)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Ovenden, John


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Pardoe, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Parker, John


Bates, Alf
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Pavitt, Laurie


Beath, A. J.
Freeson, Reginald
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Bidwell, Sydney
Freud, Clement
Pendry, Tom


Bishop, E. S.
Golding, John
Penhaligon, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Perry, Ernest


Boardman, H.
Graham, Ted
Robinson, Geoffrey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, John (Islington C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Rooker, J. W.


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hefter, Eric S.
Sandelson, Neville


Campbell, Ian
Hooson, Emyln
Selby, Harry


Carmichael, Neil
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Carson, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Silverman, Julius


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Clemitson, Ivor
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Small, William


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Snape, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Spearing, Nigel


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Conlan, Bernard
Lamble, David
Stoddart, David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Corbett, Robin
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Tinn, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Tomney, Frank


Cryer,Bob
Lipton, Marcus
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Litterick, Tom
Ward, Michael


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McElhone, Frank
Weitzman, David


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Mackenzie, Gregor
White, James (Pollok)


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Dempsey, James
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Doig, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Dormand, J. D.
Molloy, William
Woodall, Alec


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Moonman, Eric
Woof, Robert


Dunn, James A.
Moyle, Roland



Dunnett, Jack
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eadie, Alex
Noble, Mike
Mr. James Hamilton and


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Frank R. White.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COUNTY COUNCIL TENANTS

'A tenant of a holding provided by a county council on land purchased by the council, who has been in occupation thereof for a period of not less than six years, shall, on notice of his desire to purchase the holding being given to the council at any time before the tenant has received notice to quit the holding, be entitled to require the sale to him of the holding at the expiration of six months from the date of the notice at the then value of the holding, exclusive of any increase of the value thereof due to any improvement executed thereon by and at the expense of the tenant, and there-upon the council shall sell the holding to the tenant accordingly .—[Mr. Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose here is to deal with the old concept of county council smallholdings. It goes back to 1892. In the aftermath of the First World War the Government, in 1919, passed the Land Settlement Facilities Act and, starting from an initial investment in about 20,000 acres, built up a vast agricultural holding extending today to over 427,000 acres of land which is held by county councils and let to individual smallholders.
If my new clause is acceptable it should be further extended to include land held in the name of the Secretary of State, particularly land in parts of Lincolnshire and elsewhere where small-holdings are developed from estuarial deposits and then let in small blocks.


The Government's decision to preclude them from their legislation drew my attention to the present state of county council smallholdings. The latest report available is that for the year ending 31st March 1974. I believe that the 1975 report will be available shortly. The 1974 report shows that at that time there were 10,319 holdings in England and Wales covering 427,650 acres, and that the total rental received was £4,012,612.
The working of the agricultural small-holdings Acts on the whole have been successful. I do not doubt that in those days considerable thought was given to the large sums of money used for the purchase of smallholdings at above market value, over-capitalised and costing more than their rents would bear. The concept was that an individual could go into a county council smallholding, learn about the responsibilities and problems of being a farmer, build up some capital and stock of his own, and progress to be a tenant of a private landlord on a larger and perhaps more commercially viable holding. That system worked reasonably satisfactorily between the wars and up to the middle 1950s and early 1960s.
In the three years ending 31st March 1974 only 526 new tenancies were granted—an average of 175 a year. By no stretch of the imagination can the scheme be now considered a first step on the ladder because new tenancies represent only 1·6 per cent. of the holdings. That means that tenants will be locked into the system, with the county council as their landlords for life. Their prospects of moving on are non-existent. The statistics prove that.
It is also accepted, and statistics prove it, that the number of farms to let, who- ever is the landlord, has now been reduced to such a trickle as to be virtually non-existent. We are talking here about the annual letting by public tender of less than 2 per cent. of all smallholdings. Even if the county councils were offering a flow of tenancies, perhaps by buying the land for letting, the next step would not be open to these small- holders. I ask the House to consider what must be the value of 427,000 acres in public ownership—by which I mean the county councils.
I have had a chance briefly to study some of the original debates on this matter. The then Minister, acting with the Board of Agriculture, emphasised the necessity for seeking above-average farms. He said that because of the size of those holdings and the public investment in them, they should be of good-quality land. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the value of all county council smallholdings in England and Wales could exceed £200 million at today's prices. Perhaps if they are let to tenants the figure might be half that, but it is certainly an astonishing sum tied up for an annual return of £4,012,000, not taking into account the cost of administering those 427,000 acres and 10,300 holdings. I am told—perhaps the Minister can give me the exact facts —that the cost of administration in some counties is as much as 25 per cent. of the rental, simply because the holdings are small and numerous and the inevitable bureacracy of local government means that there is a rather top-heavy administration in many cases.
But that is not the main point of my argument. My objection is that under the 1919 and 1926 Acts, county councils are permitted to sell their smallholdings to the tenant, but that almost no county council has instituted that policy. We have heard the same arguments in other spheres. I think particularly of the sale of council houses to sitting tenants. The county councils have argued that it is easy to administer an estate that is a block and that to start breaking up estates would be bad estate management, and so on. But it is equally bad estate management to create an estate especially for the purpose of having tenants in a transitory stage of their careers and then circumstances so altering that they are tied into those holdings for the whole of their working lives. The Government partly recognised this problem in 1971, when in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of that year they allowed county councils certain special powers for the amalgamation of holdings, but that has had the effect of reducing the number available for letting.
There is an easy and logical approach —to return to the original provision in the 1919 Act. The clause is word for word most of a subsection of that Act.


The only omission is the final words relating to the consent of the Board of Agriculture. In those days the Minister had to monitor county councils selling to smallholders because the market price was well below what the county councils paid for those holdings. The position is now totally reversed. Their value is many times in excess of their book cost. It would be good business for many county councils to sell their smallholdings. I should like to make it mandatory on them at least to offer their tenants of more than six years' standing the right to purchase their freeholds.
We should not be depriving people of any opportunities to farm but should be encouraging the possession of property. On 16th July 1926, the then Minister, Mr. Guinness, proposing an amendment on this matter, said:
The Chaplin Act of 1892 showed that the Conservative Party at that time were already convinced of the truth of the old maxim,'The magic of ownership turns sand into gold', and this Bill seeks to encourage smallholdings on a freehold basis by new methods"—[Official Report, 16th July 1926; Vol. 198, c. 783.]
It may be that the Minister who is to answer this debate does not accept that maxim, but many county council smallholders would, and would believe it right and proper that they should pay a little more and end up with freehold property.
I accept that there are complications. For example, how would the capital be found? That is a problem faced by all small farmers making the transition from tenancy to ownership. Some assistance with the initial mortgages might have to be provided, but there is nothing new in that. When we look back through the legislation we find that provisions were made in those days for helping in that way.
7.15 p.m.
I could also quote at some length from the speech of Sir Arthur Boscawen, I believe a relative of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who spoke in those days of the merits of the transition from tenancy to ownership. He said on Second Reading of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill:
It is quite natural that many men should look not merely to getting a bit of land as tenants, but to own a bit of land, and we give them opportunity under Clause 15 with certain limitations … but we say if a man

comes as a tenant at the reasonable rent 1 have suggested, he may have the option to buy after the seven years' period at the then value".—[Official Report, 14th April 1919; Vol. 114, c. 2587.]
The problems then were quite different, but the principle remains the same.
When local authorities are crying out for resources and complaining that they do not have the capital for schools, roads and other facilities, it is reasonable to suggest that they might release the capital invested in good agricultural land by selling to the individual tenants of the present day.

Mr. Geraint Howells: There is a great deal of merit in what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but if we pursued that type of policy what legislation would the hon. Gentleman introduce to help youngsters to start on the agricultural ladder?

Mr. Wiggin: That point is highly relevant. I am saying that the present system does not set them on the ladder and that we should therefore dismantle it. I entirely accept that in a country whose agricultural land is shrinking at the rate of 50,000 acres a year, when education has improved and it is the ambition of many more people to go into farming, there continues to be a problem, but it is different from that of the 1920s, when the county council smallholdings were set up.
However, when people wish to do many things today—such as manufacturing articles or entering retail trade—the sheer capital requirement and lack of opportunity makes many of them go into employment instead of starting on their own. I accept that to some extent farming is different, but as it becomes more modern it will inevitably be harder for people to enter it. The legislation with which we are dealing today will make it much harder still. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there will be no more tenancies offered on the open market. In the interests of good estate management, there should be none. I can conceive of no professional adviser telling his clients, except for the handful of estates held by institutions, "Let your farm". I should be drawn into a whole new area that we shall be covering later if I pursued the matter, but in Committee the hon. Gentleman consistently supported legislation that has


shut down the supply in a totally different area.
The case for the new clause, unlike some of those with which we have already dealt, is very simple. It is that the resources invested in land held in public ownership should be released to those who are now enjoying that land. This should be done at a fair price. I am not saying that it should not be at market value. It should be released to them so that they may become property owners and see something for the lifetime of labour which so many smallholders put into their holdings, thus releasing assests badly needed elsewhere for more useful purposes.

Mr. Strang: I assume, although it is not clear as the clause is drafted—I am not absolutely certain even after the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin)—that he intends it to be restricted to statutory smallholdings let by county councils under Part III of the Agriculture Act 1970. That part of the Act gives effect to the policy on smallholdings following the report of the Wise Committee on statutory smallholdings. The committee advised that they should be used as a gateway for new entrants to farming, and Section 39(1) provides that, in the performance of their functions under Part III, smallholdings authorities shall make it their general aim to provide opportunities for persons with the necessary agricultural experience to be farmers on their own acount by letting holding to them.
The operative words are "by letting". To compel a local authority to sell a holding at the request of the tenant would strike at the heart of the national policy on holdings. The demand for holdings to let is keen, and there is no lack of suitable applicants. The standard is high, but they are persons of limited capital who would stand no chance of getting into farming if this traditional gateway were closed.
The hon. Member has made a pertinent point about the numbers of people who are moving through these smallholdings. It is fair to say that we originally spoke in terms of smallholdings being the bottom rung of the farming ladder. It is significant that we now use the phrase "gateway to farming". In practice, the movement is not on the scale which, I

am sure, people envisaged when we started this scheme many years ago. Indeed, it is, perhaps, not on the scale that it was in its early stages. It is now much harder to enter farming this way.
Well-managed, intensively-farmed smallholdings can give a good living to people who are naturally content to increase the productivity and efficiency of their holding and thereby increase their income, rather than to move on to another holding, but one must accept that the holdings become available for letting and that if one took them away and made the tenants owner-occupiers one would close this gateway to farming. That statement is still valid.
The hon. Member talks about these people being "locked in". Presumably they are locked in either of their own choice or because they do not have sufficient capital to move on to buying another holding. Holdings are still coming on to the market. I take his point that the number of holdings to let has been falling sharply over the years. Indeed, it can be argued that some of the new clauses to the Bill might add to that process, although I believe that the effect would be marginal, on the basis of our experience in Scotland.
The hon. Member has partly acknowledged that, since smallholdings are comprised in estates, and each one has its place in securing the balanced structure of the estate, if some smallholdings were sold to the individual occupier management would be made much harder. The change would not provide for such sensible estate management of local authority smallholdings.
I was interested that the hon. Member should say that the cost of administration was 25 per cent. of the rental income. If he is right, that is a staggering and disturbing figure. I cannot confirm or deny the figure, but hon. Members might be interested to consider it in relation to their own local authorities.
Perhaps the heart of the matter is that, basically, the hon. Member is in principle against the idea of anything being owned by the community. I suppose that he wants to minimise the likelihood of anything being held collectively. He overstates the case, perhaps on the basis of his own political philosophy, for someone actually owning the holding he farms


and the satisfaction to be derived from building up the capital value. To a large extent, the capital value built up has not been the product of the investment of these people but is the result of the rise in land values, which has occurred regardless of individual investment in holdings. The hon. Member exaggerates that point of view.
Partly because of my background in tenant farming, but also because of my political philosophy, I see nothing wrong or inferior about renting a farm and running it well on a well-managed estate on which the landlord invests adequately in the infrastructure and plays his part in investing in the holding.
It is a pertinent point that the Association of County Councils is opposed to the new clause. As I have explained, the new clause is unacceptable, for policy and practical reasons, and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to take up the point with which the Minister ended—the position of the Association of County Councils. I do so because, for six years, I served as a member of a county council. Although I was not a member of the smallholdings committee, I took some interest in its activities and functions. I am very much in sympathy with the case so well put to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The Association of County Councils, as the Minister rightly said, is strongly against the new clause and has been consistently against this sort of clause since we began our deliberations on the Bill.
In a letter which the association has, no doubt, sent to selected Members of Parliament, dated 5th May, it says:
One of the principal objectives of smallholdings is to provide an entry into farming for those with the required experience and qualifications
The association, through the good offices of its secretary, Mr. A. C. Hetherington, adds:
Unfortunately, the numbers of those wishing to take holdings are greater than the vacancies that arise
That may be the case, Perhaps the Government should look at other ways of enabling the new generation to go into farming. It is true that the capital required by a young person to enter farm-

ing today is very great, that that money cannot be found at this time from virtually any sources, and that, therefore, the county councils, through their smallholdings, at least offer an opportunity, however small, to new entrants. That is certainly good for the farming industry, but the association goes on to say that the shortage of smallholdings
would be exacerbated if counties could be required to sell holdings, because the pool of holdings for letting would get smaller and smaller
Mr. Hetherington goes further:
…counties' smallholdings reorganisation plans under the Agriculture Act 1970 envisaged the amalgamation of many of the smallholdings over a period of years, in order to produce units that are more economically viable
I think that he feels strongly what he says in the next sentence:
The implementation of the new clause on enfranchisement would produce a patchwork of ownerships of county smallholdings estates which would prevent reasonable amalgamation
The Minister did not mention that point. I should be glad if he would elaborate slightly on his remarks.
Very few tenancies of agricultural holdings are available each year, and therefore the philosophy behind the new clause is worthy of full consideration. The number of vacancies each year is minute. Therefore, is the whole infrastructure involved in smallholdings still really worth while?
I have tried to put both sides of the case. There is much more to the new clause than, perhaps, the short debate today would suggest. I believe that my hon. Friend has highlighted an important point. I have tried to tempt the Minister to rise again to deal with this matter, but it seems, without success.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The hon. Member has quoted Mr. Hetherington's letter, except for the last sentence. That says:
We hope you will oppose the clause

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member has anticipated me. I was about to come to that point. I felt that I should present the case as I have because I did not feel that the Minister did justice to my hon. Friend's case.
I am very open-minded on this matter. In the near future the need for smallholdings as they are today is going to disappear. I think that they should be abolished because the cost of maintaining them is now a waste of resources and manpower, both of which could be put to better use. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is going to divide the House on this new clause. This has been an important debate, and I hope the Government will, in the future, give consideration to the case put forward by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Richard Body: I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech a few minutes ago leaned too heavily on the Wise Report. I think that most people recognise that the report is now almost out of date. It was published seven or eight years ago when smallholdings were still spoken of as a step up the farming ladder, and that situation has now ceased to exist. No one can say that smallholdings are even a gateway to farming today—a phrase used in the Wise Report and adopted tonight by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Today there are so few holdings available, particularly to provide opportunities for young people, that once a tenant gets in, he stays in. That is not a gateway, but a cul-de-sac. Nothing is to be gained from having young farmers aged up to 30 beginning a farming career in one of these holdings, and ending it there. Many farmers remain there throughout their careers. That is the general pattern and we all should regret it. But in regretting it we must ask whether it is right to continue this system as it is.
One way out of this would be to vary the rent from year to year so that in the early days of tenancy a farmer would be able to pay less than the economic rent. This could continue for seven or eight years, and each year thereafter the rent could be increased until there came a time when it was not worth while for the farmer to stay in that holding. He would then have to make way for some other young man.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) is making sounds which indicate that he totally disapproves of what

I am saying. But when middle-aged farmers become old-aged pensioners on smallholdings, that is not doing any good for agriculture or offering any opportunities for young men coming into farming. If we are `to have a true gateway—and these holdings should give young men opportunities to learn the skills of management and to acquire extra capital in order to advance—then there must be an incentive for older farmers to move on elsewhere, once they have had an opportunity to succeed. If they cannot make a success of it after 10 years or so, they should quit. It is utterly selfish for old, old men to continue on in these holdings long after the age of retirement.
I support the new clause wholeheartedly, and I am disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary has not gone further. I think that eventually the Government will be driven to a more radical view about the future of these holdings. On this side of the House we believe that it is not for county councils to go into the business of being agricultural landlords. I hope that Members of the Liberal Party will agree with us that there should be a little more private endeavour. I know that this is anti-collectivist, but we on this side of the House are anti-collectivist.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) is a member of my chambers and I have a warm regard for him. However, I totally disagree with his sentiments.
I represent an agricultural county where there is a large area with a considerable number of smallholding estates. Virtually the only chance a young man has to get a tenancy of a farm in my county is to get one of these smallholdings. This is because there are relatively few agricultural estates. The farms tend to be on much larger sized estates, and they come on to the market for letting relatively rarely. Therefore smallholdings are the only rung on the ladder for most people who want to enter the agricultural industry as farmers.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) is proposing, in this new clause, to wipe out that gateway altogether. He has extolled the virtues of the landlord-tenant relationship— apparently that is all right if the landlord owns the property privately. From


the Conservative Benches many tears have been shed over the fact that it is becoming more and more difficult for landlords to continue their estates and that there are fewer and fewer farms to be let. Yet in this new clause the hon. Member is proposing that in certain areas, such as mine, the only chance for a young man to get a farm which is being let is to be abolished.
I do not agree with him, obviously, but he has done a service to the House in that he has underlined the fact that we should consider anew the functions of the smallholdings and how land should be held in this country. I have no regrets that land is held by the community. I am a firm believer in private ownership, but this is not incompatible with having a wide area owned by the public as well. Have Conservative Members opposed the Forestry Commission, which owns so much land? In an area such as mine there have been Economic Forestry and Fountain Forestry which have bought great tracts of land. The Commission is taking land out of private ownership, in its strict sense into some form of public ownership. Whether the land is owned by a public corporation or a public company does not seem to matter in this context. Even now I would like to see the county councils competing with the Forestry Commission and public companies in buying marginal land and setting up holdings of considerably larger acreage than that available for small holdings, and making them available for letting to young farmers.

Mr. Wiggin: Much as I would like to debate the problems of forestry in Montgomery I will refrain from doing so and point out that the land which the hon. and learned Member talks about is today farmed by somebody. If it is taken into public ownership it will be farmed by someone else. I hope that no one would interpret my new clause as closing a gateway to farming. The gateway is already shut for other reasons.

Mr. Hooson: I do not accept that the gateway is shut. Because of policies introduced in 1970 I know of more people in the older age group who have moved from small to larger holdings than in the younger age group of tenants. It is more difficult today for other reasons. I accept that.
We have also been wrong in amalgamating smallholdings to such an extent that the smallholder does not want to move but is satisfied with his holding and regards it as the fulfilment of his economic desires. When a smallholding becomes available it is not unusual for there to be more than 100 applicants for it. Often the number is far in excess of that and the applicants are well qualified to run the holding successfully.
In Montgomery our policy is to charge an economic rent for smallholdings. The rents for smallholdings are often higher than would be charged by private landlords. The vast majority of such applicants do not otherwise have the chance to start in farming. If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has his way he will close to future generations what is already a very narrow gateway, and I am dead against that.
The House should embark upon a much wider debate about how land should be held. It is difficult for a man to find money to buy his farm and to run it properly. He has to find both tenant's capital and landlord's capital. Inevitably we face the prospect, therefore, of greater public ownership of farm land. This has been the case with the Forestry Commission, and the social consequences of that are a matter for concern. In an area such as mine great tracts of land are taken over for forestry and are completely depopulated. It would be better if smaller areas were taken for forestry so that proper, well-equipped holdings could be set up in that kind of area. The correct relationship there would be of landlord and tenant.
The reality of economics today makes it impossible for a private landlord to do that. He would have neither the resources nor the incentive. The task could be taken on only by the county council. The county I represent went in for smallholdings in a big way and my only regret is that we did not go in for them on an even larger scale, but that would not have been allowed by the Government, who prohibited the purchase of land in marginal areas which we could have rehabilitated.
I can appreciate some of the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. The reason for the


clause is, I suspect, to underline the problems which surround the use to be made of smallholdings, to stress that smallholdings are a stepping stone and not an end in themselves, and that perhaps we should produce larger holdings. In my county we have tried to grade the holdings so that a man on a smallholding can apply to move on to a larger holding.

Mr. Winterton: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know how many smallholdings in his constituency came up for re-letting in, say, the last 12 or 24 months?

Mr. Hooson: I do not know, but I have seen at least a dozen applicants who have told me of various holdings that they think will be coming on to the market. They have asked for my advice—

Mr. Jopling: Were they all referring to the same holding?

Mr. Hooson: No, they were not. I know the difference between one holding and another even if the hon. Member might not.
For these reasons the Government are right to oppose the clause. Everyone concerned with agriculture appreciates that we should have a much broader and deeper discussion of the whole strategy of land holding, of the functions which are to be performed by the farm to be let, and of who is to provide the farms to be let.

Mr. Buchan: I had not intended to take part in the debate because I thought that not many hon. Members would wish to buttress the case advanced by the hon. Member for Weston-uper-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). It is worth making clear that and some of my hon. Friends who may not have supported the Government throughout on the Bill do so on this subject, and share the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
We would be blinding ourselves to reality to ignore that the new clause springs from the same source as opposition to the new clauses on security of tenancy. It is said by Conservative Members that since there is not a very wide gateway there is little point in con-

tinuing its existence. That is an extraordinary argument. If the gate is not open wide enough it should be our job to open it wider, not close it.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member that we should take a much more detailed look at public ownership, not in a dogmatic sense, but upon the approach that he adopted, which was, that since private landlords are unable to create the situation in which tenants move on to marginal land in this way, it is the job of the State or the local authorities to do so. We should be encouraging that initiative. Of course, I would prefer to go even further, but I shall not tread that road tonight.
One of the problems is that the scheme has been too limited. Our task is surely to extend the scheme, and I would welcome a wider discussion of proposals to that end.
We face the situation in which private forestry can take over land, but where a local authority is unable to do so. That will prevent any proper development of existing holdings by local authorities, because one of the problems is that, in general, the holdings are small, sometimes too small. A few years ago we thought that the task should be to assist in improving small holdings by allowing for amalgamation, but if the holdings are to go into private hands, that will prevent proper development of a land holding policy.
My hon. Friend the Minister was, therefore, right to reject the proposal. We have learned from this debate that a fuller discussion of the question would be useful, but in the meantime we should assist local authorities to extend their activities in this sphere, and allow a policy of amalgamation to go forward in order to improve the structure of these holdings.

Mr. Wiggin: With the leave of the House, may I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friends for supporting me? My proposal received less criticism on political and dogmatic grounds than I had anticipated, but the Minister is a kind man and sometimes sees the other point of view and argues accordingly.
I strongly question the open door philosophy. The rate of letting of county council smallholdings is pretty much in line with the death rate of tenants, and,


therefore, the new tenants move into dead men's shoes. If the farms were owned and not let they would go on to the market at almost the same rate.
I must pursue the point that has been made about the need for a complete review of the landlord and tenant relationship, whoever the landlord may be. I am glad to hear that said, and especially by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). That was the basis of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) regarding the term of years letting. Such a review could go a long way to opening the door very much wider, making it possible for agriculture to be considered in a truly commercial light. I have in mind a situation in which a young man could go into agriculture, take a chance and, if he proved successful, make a career of it. However, I believe that the Bill will finally slam the door shut rather than open it wider.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he fought throughout Committee to determine the right of the landlord to say who shall be the tenant, whereas in this clause he is seeking to prevent a socially responsible body, namely, the local authority, from doing so?

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman twists my words. If he does not know by now why I was opposed to the new provisions, I am sorry; but it would be tedious to repeat my objections. I believe that my position is abundantly clear.
On many occasions I have been among 200 or 300 tenants tendering for farms at ridiculous rents in an attempt to expand my business. There is a decreasing amount of agricultural land, and the supply cannot be increased. As long as we have a reducing supply of land, the demand will inevitably increase. That is so simple an economic fact that it has probably not percolated through and been recognised by Labour Members. But perhaps I am altering the tone of what has been a friendly debate.
As the clause raises a major matter involving hundreds of millions of pounds, perhaps the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

DISSOLUTION OF SUGAR BOARD

Mr. Bishop: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 26 at end insert—
'(8) Any gain accruing to the Board in consequence of subsection (1) above shall not be a chargeable gain for the purposes of corporation tax on chargeable gains.'
The amendment provides for the exemption of the Sugar Board from the liability to pay corporation tax on chargeable gains when its assets are transferred to my right hon. Friend, as provided for under Clause 1(1).
It will be known that the purpose of the clause is to transfer to the Minister the assets and liabilities of the board, and to provide for the dissolution of the board on a day to be appointed by the Minister. Such a transfer would normally be a chargeable gain liable to corporation tax. That would generate a significant tax liability.
The major asset to be transferred is the board's holding of 2½million shares in the British Sugar Corporation. As the board's liabilities will be transferred to the Minister at the same time as the assets, any tax liability would fall upon the Exchequer.
The point I am making is that the Exchequer would pay the Minister so that he could pay the Inland Revenue tax which would then return to the Exchequer. On these grounds it is proposed that there should be no liability to pay corporation tax on chargeable gains on the transfer of shares.
This would not be the first occasion on which a public body has been granted exemption from corporation tax on chargeable gains. The exemption was given to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1970.

Mr. Wiggin: Like many other hon. Members I have been privileged on many occasions to waste a considerable amount of time on the Floor of the House, but to be debating an amendment that precludes a Government Department from charging itself tax is the height of Gilbert and Sullivan.
In Committee the Minister said:
As I have made quite clear, the orders under the clause will not authorise any new


Exchequer expenditure"—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 16th December 1976. c. 76.]
It is true that the hon. Gentleman was then talking about something slightly different, but we did not imagine that there would be a tax liability to his Department that would have to go back to the Treasury.
I have not had the privilege of being in Her Majesty's Government, but I understand from my hon. Friends and colleagues who have that in all circumstances the Treasury should be kept at bay. We shall gladly join in such an exercise with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have no intention of opposing this minor amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

DUTIES OF MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION AS REGARDS CONSULTATION

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 20 at end insert—"Qualified Veterinary Surgeons".
In Committee we had a short but useful debate on this topic. I remind the Minister of State that on Thursday 22nd January he gave various assurances to the Opposition. He said:
However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that the 1967 Act is not a table of Moses coming down from the mountain. It is something which has been the basis for our consideration. However, the 1967 Act, as well as representations and consultations with the MLC and others, should be taken into account. The Veterinary Association has written to us on this matter and I assure the Committee that we will take another look at this in relation to the MLC to see whether there is adequate representation of vets".
My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) interjected and asked whether that would be done by Report. The Minister continued:
Yes. There are, however, certain dangers, because one may get a whole crowd of other people saying that other categories have an interest as well as vets. I do not want to name them because it may tempt them. Once we start that, we get duplication."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 22nd January 1976, c. 259.]

I ask the Minister of State to study the Bill as amended in Committee. I remind him that in page 3 Section 1A, headed
Commission's duty to consult representative organisations",
provides
If it appears to the Commission that any matter arising or likely to arise out of the exercise of the Commission's functions has or is likely to have a substantial effect on the interests of one or more classes of persons mentioned in Part IIA of Schedule 1 to this Act, the Commission shall consult the relevant organisation or each of the relevant organisations about that matter".
I refer the House to page 4 and to the classes of persons for the purposes of Section 1A. The first section is cattle, pig and sheep producers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the qualified veterinary service has a considerable interest in this sphere. The second category listed are those persons employed in livestock production. Qualified veterinary surgeons have an important part to play in that sector as well.
8.0 p.m.
I could go on. There is no doubt that livestock traders have close dealings with qualified veterinary surgeons, a qualified group which provides a vital service in livestock trading.
I know from my experience of livestock auctioneering that there is always a qualified veterinary surgeon in attendance at an auction yard. Again, this professional body has a great deal to do with all the activities listed here.
Perhaps it is right to pick out
Local authorities operating slaughterhouses and livestock and meat markets.
The qualified veterinary surgeon has a vital part to play in those activities.
The last class of persons detailed is:
Persons employed in the marketing and distribution of livestock or the production, processing, manufacture, marketing and distribution of livestock products.
Again, the qualified veterinary surgeon is closely involved in all those acivities—and rightly so.
Maybe I am being a little unfair in going over some of the ground which has been covered before in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be sensitive to this amendment. There are no party politics behind it. The amendment genuinely seeks to give a group of people who are not listed here the statutory


right to be consulted when their interests are involved.
I remind the Minister that the functions of the Meat and Livestock Commission include promoting breeding programmes, progeny testing, registration of herds, and so on. I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). Qualified veterinary surgeons are rightly deeply involved in all these matters. Therefore, it is right that they should be listed in this part of the Bill. It is for that reason that I am promoting this straightforward amendment.
It is a shame that we are unable to have a slightly wider debate on the whole subject of consultation. A number of bodies are deeply concerned about the lack of consultation which may or may not occur. For instance, I know that the NFU is deeply concerned that there could be a reduction in the level of consultation between the MLC and the industry's organisations following the abolition of the Production and Distribution committees of the MLC. I do not propose to go over that ground again. The NFU, like other organisations—the Association of Fresh Meat Wholesalers, the Meat Manufacturers' Association, the Smithfield Market Fresh Meat Traders Association and others—is not convinced that the procedures so far indicated by the MLC will prove much better than those provided by the Agriculture Act 1967. I am not reassured by the reassertion of the MLC's independence contained in the introduction to the Commission's recently published annual report. I need not quote the extract from the report to which I have just referred.
This is a fairly straightforward amendment, but it would be wrong for me to miss the opportunity of quoting the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge. In Committee, he said:
I, for one, am disappointed with the Minister's reply. It is the classic argument for maintaining the status quo—'We have got along all right so far. We did a bit on a previous clause regarding the machinery of consultation, and there is nothing to preclude the Commission from having consultations with qualified veterinary surgeons, or whomsoever; so let us not embark on any further amendments.'

That was my hon. Friend's summing up of the Minister's position in Committee. He continued:
In the list of specified parties on page 4 of the Bill there is
'Persons engaged in animal by-products trades.'
which I interpret to mean people who produce such articles as tripe, pig trotters or gut sausage-skins. If the Minister and those who inspire him in the Ministry can go to extremes in specifying such categories—I would think quite rightly—then why not veterinary surgeons? He has undertaken to look at this matter again, but not, I feel, with a very good heart."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 22nd January 1976; c. 256.]
I did not agree with my hon. Friend on that occasion that the Minister did not give assurances with a good heart. I think that he did give assurances with a good heart in Committee. I hope that he will now, on Report, accept this straightforward amendment which I believe will be of considerable benefit to the Bill.
I suspect that, as in Committee, the Minister may say that veterinary surgeons are represented on the livestock and other committees of the Meat and Livestock Commission, including the Research Advisory Committee. I am trying to anticipate what he will say. However, I feel sure that the Minister will now agree, from the modest and moderate way in which the amendment has been moved—and on this occasion we have the Liberal Party with us—that we believe that it will benefit the Bill.
I am sure that I shall have wholehearted support for this amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), whose interest in animal welfare is known throughout the country. There is no doubt that in the export of live animals the qualified veterinary surgeon at virtually every port of call of those animals, including the final port of call, the abattoir, on the other side of the English Channel or the North Sea, plays a vital part guaranteeing animal health and welfare. I speak from experience.

Sir Bernard Braine: Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East) rose—

Mr. Winterton: am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), whose interest in animal exports and


other matters of that kind is extremely well known. I hope that he will intervene a little later. I do not believe that there would be any point in giving way to him at this stage, but, if he insists, I am happy to do so.
Qualified veterinary surgeons play a vital part in livestock matters. They should have the right to be independently consulted, irrespective of the positions which they hold on various committees within the MLC. Therefore, we put forward this amendment, which would have the effect of adding qualified veterinary surgeons to the classes of persons listed.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I give unqualified support to this amendment. The only point I should like to make is that veterinary surgeons in their relationships with animals are comparable with the medical profession in its relationships with human beings. Running through this schedule in the categories named is an association which should not be denied the right of consultation. Therefore, the Government should accept the amendment.

Mr. Bishop: I recognise the importance of veterinary surgeons in the context of this debate. However, this proposal applies to other categories of people involved in the industry. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others engaged in an extensive discussion when this matter was debated in Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) proposed an amendment to include qualified veterinary surgeons in the classes of persons to be consulted by the MLC. The arguments for the specific reference to the veterinary profession seemed to relate to its role in breeding developments and disease prevention and cure, and its responsibility for meat inspection. I ought to emphasise that meat inspection is not, however, a function of the MLC. That is just a passing point, but it should not be overlooked. The amendment was not satisfactory in that regard. However, as the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, I assured the Committee that by Report I would consider the spirit of it further.

Mr. Geraint Howells: As producers, we pay a levy, do we not? I take it that that money goes to the MLC?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman has a point. However, I should not like to go too deeply into the direct or indirect contributions of the industry which help to maintain the MLC. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do the composition of the MLC and its responsibilities.
However, I assured the Committee that I would consider the spirit of the amendment to see whether there might be more that could be done by the commission, through its own arrangements, to involve veterinary interests. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has rightly reminded us of the list in Clause 3(2), which defines "relevant organisation" as an organisation designated by Ministers as being capable of representing the interests of a class of persons mentioned in subsection (3). He has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the first three categories, apart from others. These include livestock traders, livestock auctioneers and others, and, of course, persons employed in livestock production. The classes of person set out in Clause 3(2) are designed to cover all persons who have a commercial role in meat production, marketing and distribution, and who might be affected by the exercise of the commission's functions.
They do not extend to professional bodies whose members might be consulted by those directly concerned with the production and distribution of meat and livestock. In Committee the amendment was described as a probing amendment. The arguments for a specific reference to the veterinary profession related to its role in breeding development, and disease prevention and cure. The commission already consults the veterinary profession on an ad hocbasis.
Following discussion in Committee the Ministry asked the commission to consider what more it could do through its own arrangements to involve the profession, and the commission proposes to set up a panel of representatives of the profession to advise it on veterinary matters, as part of its non-statutory consultation arrangements. The spirit of the amendment has been carefully considered. It is not possible to identify separately any function or interest of the profession that requires statutory consultation. However,


I am pleased to report that the commission has considered what more it can do through its own arrangements to involve the profession, and has decided to establish a veterinary panel to advise it on veterinary matters as part of its non-statutory consultation arrangements. That is part of the consequences of the points made in the Committee.
I am satisfied that it is right to meet the Opposition's purpose in this way rather than to give one ancillary profession favoured treatment under the legislation. I assure the hon. Member for Macclesfield and his hon. Friends that we have thought this matter to be one of some importance. I hope that the assurance I have given to the House will enable him not to press the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When the Minister of State started his speech I thought that once again he would be putting up a brick wall and that the reasoned argument that we presented, as it was presented to the Committee, would go unheard. However, later in his short speech we saw a chink as he developed his argument. I believe that the information that he has provided—I speak on behalf of the main Opposition party, but I think that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will take the same view as I am about to express—is highly satisfactory. I am delighted that the consultations that he has had since the Committee have produced this result, which, I believe, will be of considerable benefit to the MLC and to all companies and people involved in the meat and livestock industry. Therefore, I thank the Minister for meeting our point, not only on behalf of the Opposition but on behalf of the industry.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

MEASURES TO RESTRICT THE GROWING OF MALE HOP PLANTS

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bishop: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 30, after 'with', insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment it will

be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13.

Mr. Bishop: I am glad that the House has recognised that I am not always an iron lady in some of these matters, and that, after vetting the suggestions put forward, we sometimes come to agreeable conclusions.
The Opposition's Amendment No. 25 in Committee sought to ensure that specific provision would be made for consultation with commercial hop growers in any area to be designated for the growing of seedless hops. Although provision is already made in the clause for individuals to object to a proposed order, we fully understand and sympathise with the concern for individual hop growers and we accepted the amendment in principle. I think that the amendment I am now putting forward fully meets the Opposition's point. In saying that I am, referring particularly to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
With regard to Amendment No. 12, this includes the words,
In this subsection 'the relevant area' means the current area or, if the proposed order would add any area to the current area, the area consisting of the current area and the area proposed to be added.
During the debate in Committee, the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) questioned whether the procedure to be followed before making revocation and variation orders was the same as for orders first establishing designated areas. Further consideration has indicated that there was. some basis for his doubts, and I am. grateful for his helpful comment. It was always our intention that the same procedures should be followed for all orders, and this amendment will ensure that that is so.
Amendment No. 13 is consequent upon, the previous amendment, which sets out in a new subsection the procedure to be followed before making revocation and' variation orders. Reference to such orders is, therefore, no longer necessary in that subsection.

Mr. Jopling: We seem to be in a stage of the consideration of the Bill where the Minister of State seems to be earning for himself our congratulations and thanks. This group of amendments is another


example exactly on those lines. This follows on from the helpful statement he made on the previous amendment. As he said, Amendments No. 10 and 11 meet a point that began, I think, in a remark that I made on Second Reading, when I think I suggested that it was extremely important that where these designation areas are made, where there is to be freedom from the growing of male hops, they should be made with very great care to ensure the maximum support of growers in the area.
As originally drafted, the Bill ensured that Ministers would consult only with organisations which appeared to represent groups of people. As we have learned, many hop growers are great individualists and it is right that the Minister should also consult individual growers.
I am sure that when a Minister designates areas where seedless crops are grown, these amendments will make his job much easier. I congratulate him on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which we heartily endorse.
Amendment No. 12 refers to an Order which may be made to revoke or vary a previous Order. A Minister may wish to vary an Order by extending the area in which male hops are not to be grown. I can understand that the Minister, having designated an area, may feel the exercise has been a great success and the production of seedless hops in the area may have such a ready home or international market that growers wish the Order to be extended. Alternatively, a Minister may feel he can identify an adjoining area which is a source of pollination by male hops.
We want to ensure that if there is an Order to extend the size of an area, the provisions of Clause 5 will be fully implemented. For instance, can we be certain that the period of notice and the opportunities for objections will be the same as those given when the original Order was made? It is essential that growers in an area which is to be extended should have exactly the same rights as were available to growers when the original Order was made. May we take it that the Orders envisaged in Amendment No. 12 will be laid before the House for consideration in the same way as the original Orders?
If we can have these assurances, I can do nothing but congratulate the Government on the amendments, which meet in full the points which we raised in Committee.

Mr. Bishop: The answer to both the questions asked by the hon. Member is "Yes".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:No. 11, in page 5, line 32, after 'hops', insert
'; and
(b)such persons as are known to him to be carrying on that business in the area,'.

No. 12, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
'(3) Where this section is in force in any area ("the current area") by virtue of an order under this section ("the current order"), the Minister may by order revoke or vary the current order if, after consultation with—

(a)such organisations as appear to him appropriate as representing persons carrying on in the relevant area the business of producing hops; and
(b) such persons as are known to him to be carrying on that business in the relevant area,
he is satisfied that it is reasonable to make the order.
In this subsection "the relevant area" means the current area or, if the proposed order would add any area to the current area, the area consisting of the current area and the area proposed to be added'.

No. 13, in page 6, line 7, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 8.—[Mr. Bishop.]

Clause 8

POWER TO REGULATE THE EXPORTATION OF ANIMALS IN THE INTERESTS OF THEIR WELFARE.

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 9, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This is a simple amendment but one concerned with an important issue of principle. Moreover, it reflects the views of many people in this country who feel strongly that the export of food animals for slaughter abroad is both morally wrong and economically unnecessary and who remain unconvinced by the assurances Ministers are obliged, under pressure, to give from time to time that such animals are now exported under controlled, civilised and humane conditions.
This is not just the view of people who are emotional about poor dumb creatures. A leading article in the journal of the British Veterinary Association in October 1974—that is during the temporary ban on the export of live food animals—asserted that many veterinary surgeons, especially those with experience in this trade, fervently hoped that it would not be re-started. Indeed, our respected veterinary profession has always argued that food animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to the farm.
I recall that the authors of the European Convention for Protection of Animals during International Transport said in the preamble to their report in 1969 that the ideal arrangement would be to restrict international traffic in food animals to carcase meat so that slaughtering took place in the country of origin. Unfortunately, it was outside their terms of reference to recommend that, and they said so.
What is ironic is that the United Kingdom has sufficiently approved slaughterhouses and adequate modern refrigerated transport to ensure a viable carcase trade. It is also ironic that in 1973 the value of our carcase trade was four times that of our trade in live animals.
The assurances given by Ministers from time to time do not carry conviction. Let us consider the record. Assurances about the export of live cattle were freely given after the Balfour Committee of 1957, but the RSPCA assures me that it found 130 breaches of those assurances within a period of just four weeks. In 1964, evidence provided by British animal welfare organisations about the revolting treatment of British sheep exported across the Channel or in some cases across the Mediterranean led to the Balfour safe-guards being extended to sheep and pigs, though the French declined to give any such assurances.
It was no wonder then that in July 1973 the House compelled the Government to impose a partial ban on exports pending the report of the O'Brien Committee. Again we know only too well what happened. The O'Brien Report was published in March 1974. It had to admit that since the mid-1960s, despite the new controls, there had been increasing public disquiet. It stated:
Incidents had been reported that the Balfour assurances had been circumvented or

wholly ignored and the welfare of animals exported from the country was not being adequately safeguarded.
That was an understatement, if ever there was one. The evidence of the continuing mistreatment of exported food animals was overwhelming and shameful.
8.30 p.m.
The essence of the O'Brien Report was that a permanent ban on the export of livestock for slaughter would not be justified on welfare or economic grounds, although exports ought not to re-start until the welfare of the animals could be safeguarded with greater certainty. The report, however, put its ultimate faith in future comprehensive international agreements.
Clearly, the O'Brien Committee could not carry out its inquiries incognito. It would have been seen coming many miles away. Some investigation was undertaken abroad, but at that time few animals were being exported and the export of sheep had stopped. Nevertheless, on 16th January 1975 the Minister told us that he accepted the findings of the O'Brien Report, and, in view of the progress which was being made in establishing international welfare safeguards across the board, he urged the House to agree to the lifting of the ban on exports to Community countries and any others which would satisfy us with regard to safeguards. Despite many misgivings on both sides of the House, he had his way. He secured a majority for his point of view.
There were, I think, three reasons for that. First, the Minister gave us explicit assurances about safeguards; secondly, he said that there would be close scrutiny of applications for licences; thirdly—and most telling of all was the fact that he uttered no word upon it—there was a letter from the President of the NFU in The Timespointing out that we had 14½million livestock in this country but only enough feed for 13 million. Better then to export the poor beasts for slaughter than to starve on British farms. What an argument that was!
Let us consider the quality of the assurances. The French animal welfare society, OABA, subsequently reported, after the assurances which had been given to the House and the votes of hon. Members had been secured, despite their misgivings, that the O'Brien Committee's


investigations in France had been worthless. One of the two French slaughterhouses visited had been forced to toe the line following OABA's complaints supported by a French Press campaign. The other, at Fountainbleau, continued to disregard the French animal welfare regulations before and after the O'Brien Committee's visit. The OABA report said:
Sheep and calves during ordinary non-ritual slaughter were being cut and bled without pre-stunning"—
I hope that I have the Minister's attention. I am talking about assurances that he and his colleagues have given from time to time. The Minister is under test, and we shall expect a careful answer to this debate. The report said:
Sheep and calves during ordinary non-ritual slaughter were being cut and bled without pre-stunning and full-grown cattle were being suspended upside down by a leg fully conscious.
A pretty sight that must have been.
Even at the large Vauginand abattoir in Paris, where one would have expected proper supervision, the OABA found welfare regulations being broken. Remember that was after the decision to end the ban on exports from this country. It found at many other abattoirs that it was the habitual policy to ignore not only French welfare legislation but also the EEC's Humane Slaughter Directive.
Since the raising of the ban, we have reverted to our former annual average of about 400,000 live food animals sent abroad every year, excluding breeding stock, going mainly to France, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Southern Ireland. Their final destinations are unknown in many cases.
Moreover, the Balfour assurances no longer apply. I invite the Minister to tell us whether we have any powers—I do not believe we have—to prevent the Community countries from re-exporting our animals to places outside the Community, where the safeguards which we are told are desirable do not apply, such as North Africa and the Middle East.
Within the Community itself, there is evidence that the situation in Italy is bad. Certainly a few years ago, a distinguished British veterinary surgeon, Dr. Carding, the Director of the World

Federation for the Protection of Animals, summarised the position in that country by saying:
one can say that at least a third of all animals officially slaughtered in Italy are not effectively stunned before being cut and bled. Many others are improperly slaughtered un-officially and illegally.
It is true that that was perhaps two or three years ago. Last year, after the lifting of the ban, we exported more than 20,000 cattle to Italy, not for breeding purposes. Since then there has been a massive increase of cattle exports to Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who knows more about animal welfare matters than any other hon. Member of this House, is in command of the facts about slaughter practices in Italy and, I hope, will catch your eye shortly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We want to know whether the Italians have altered their practices since Doctor Carding's condemnation a few short years ago. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. I think that he knows in his heart, and I think that his advisers know, that the position in Italy and a great many other countries is still far from satisfactory. The paper assurances exist; the directives are there. But what actually happens on the ground is very different.
This amendment is not concerned with the resumption of the ban on exports. That is a subject that will have to be argued on some other occasion. Indeed, I believe that in the end common sense, true economic interest and compassion for the creatures which we raise for our own use and profit will combine and put an end to this dubious traffic.
It may be argued that, since last April, the Government have required exporters to declare in writing the exact final destination of each consignment of animals when applying for a veterinary inspector's certificate. How exporters can certify the exact final destination against the background that I have described is very difficult for the layman to grasp. No doubt the veil will be torn away by the Minister, the mystery will be resolved, and we shall be told that the Ministry is quite satisfied with these certificates as to the final destinations of animals exported and that the animals will be transported and slaughtered at a place where humane conditions obtain.
If, therefore, the system is effective, if the Minister claims that it is effective—it has been in operation since April last year—why is Parliament asked to approve the word "may"? Why "may" and not "shall"? "Shall" has been the practice since last April. May we take it that the Minister is completely satisfied with the assurances, that all is sweetness and light, and that these terrible abuses which only a short time ago were taking place are taking place no longer; that the final destinations of these animals are known? If the Minister is satisfied why not insert in the statute the word "shall" and make it mandatory? Why is not it mandatory? Is not the truth that the information which has been acquired since last April is nothing more than a farce in a good many cases?
Consider the realities. In Committee on 3rd February the Minister referred to certain happenings in France and told my hon. Friend, the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton):
But the hon. Gentleman knows better than I that we are not responsible for what happens on French soil. We can only seek to influence the veterinary profession and the authorities in other countries."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C,3rd February 1976; c. 401.]
Let us take that a little further. On 1st December the Parliamentary Secretary who is now concerned with the state of public opinion, said during the Second Reading of this Bill:
We regarded it as imperative that when livestock are exported to Community or other countries with satisfactory arrangements we should know in advance the precise destination, so that we can communicate with the receiving country to ensure that the authorities will look out for the consignment of livestock and be able to monitor and minimise, if not eliminate completely, any hardship on the animals. I may say that the French authorities are co-operating extremely well with the Government on these matters."—[Official Report,1st December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 1347.]

Mr. Burden: Why is there reluctance now to retain the obligatory "shall"? In future we shall just know the number of animals exported without knowing where they are going and with no possibility of knowing the manner in which they are treated in particular countries.

Sir B. Braine: My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has put his finger on the crux of the matter. We do not know. We have not been told. The purpose of this debate is to elicit

the information, but the point I want to make is that the very day the hon. Gentleman was telling the House that they were going
to monitor and minimise, if not eliminate completely, any hardship on the animals.
and that
the French authorities are co-operating extremely well with the Government on these matters.
the Minister of Agriculture in a Written Answer, said in regard to a statement made on 11th April last year concerning the export of live sheep to France,
I have now been informed by the French authorities that in a hearing before an examining magistrate it has been decided that there is insufficient evidence to justify further proceeding in the case to which I referred on 11th April 1975."—[Official Report,1st December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 350.]
Of course the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. Neither he nor the right hon. Gentleman has the slightest control over what happens in France or in other countries when animals are further transported on to Algeria, Greece or the Middle East. He does not know where they go. How can any trader, exporting genuinely to France or Holland or Belgium, certify that that is the final destination of the animals in question?
It is clear, is it not, that the Government are not in control of this situation, although they have pretended for too long that they are in control of it? It is in the nature of things that they cannot be in control. They are unsure and uneasy about this situation. It is no use their telling us that they will introduce an Order within 12 months, as the hon. Gentleman told the Committee. It should be introduced now. The provision should be made in the Bill so that they should introduce an Order as soon as the Bill becomes law. The provision in Clause 8 should be mandatory. Logic, common sense and humanity combine to urge this course upon them.
Delay begs some questions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the the answers when he rises to reply. Are the Government sincere about the welfare of animals exported for slaughter? Are the Government genuinely sincere on this matter. No economic considerations are involved because it is more profitable to export carcase meat than to


export meat on the hoof. Have the Government a genuine feeling of compassion for these living creatures? Do they understand the difficulties involved in regulating such traffic? Do they understand the difference between directives being issued at the top of the tree and being implemented by the people at the bottom—by people, that is, who for years have disregarded the laws of their own land? If the answers to those questions are an unequivocal "Yes", I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Burden: The Government must recognise that for many years a great deal of concern has been expressed over the methods employed in the slaughtering of animals as well as over their transportation abroad for purposes of slaughter. This matter cuts across party boundaries. Concern about conditions has been expressed by the public in general rather than merely by those who are actively engaged in animal welfare. If the Government relax controls in ensuring the reasonable transportation of animals for slaughter they will experience strong feelings of public revulsion. If the Government seek to claim that they are taking such steps to fit in with EEC requirements there will certainly be a reaction, on grounds of common humanity, against our membership of the Common Market.
Concern on this topic goes back over a period of 20 years to 1957, the year in which the Balfour Committee was set up. Following public disquiet, that committee was set up to examine the main reasons for concern. First, it investigated a situation in which animals were unfit to stand the journey abroad. Secondly, it investigated whether there was lack of adequate care and attention before embarkation. Thirdly, in those days the fact that animals had to undergo long train journeys—today, of course, most animals are carried by road—without food or water, after disembarkation on the Continent, caused the committee to express great dismay. Fourthly, the deprivation of the United Kingdom legislation governing the slaughtering of animals.
It is true to say that we have dealt reasonably successfully with the export of animals which are unfit to travel and

have covered the situation of their being given adequate attention before embarkation. I shall not pursue many of the points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) because I hope that he has persuaded the Minister by the force of his eloquence. Following the report of the Balfour Committee, the House decided that animals for immediate slaughter should go only to those countries whose Governments had signed an agreement covering humane slaughter and transportation. I understand that that agreement has never been rescinded by the House.
We are told that because we are now members of the EEC the Balfour requirements no longer apply. We should like to know what will replace those requirements. Belgium, Holland, Italy and West Germany agreed to abide by Balfour for sheep, pigs and cattle, but France agreed only for cattle. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that, till there is an end to the export of live animals for slaughter, the countries to which they are sent comply with the Balfour Agreements.
Concern has been expressed by Labour Members about this traffic. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), a former Minister in the Scottish office responsible for agriculture, made an excellent and forceful speech on this subject.
We must ensure that animals which are sent abroad are humanely transported and are stunned before slaughter.
In 1972 the Government gave an assurance that no cattle or sheep would be exported to the Middle East countries, because they carry out ritual slaughter. In 1973 the Conservative Government banned the export of sheep to France. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, was instrumental in bringing about the ban. On 16th January 1975 he stated that he did so not under pressure, but because there was evidence of cruelty that he knew to be true. Subsequently there was a ban imposed on the export of cattle. The ban was lifted after the present Minister of Agriculture gave solemn undertakings in the House.
There was a strong body of opinion in the House against the resumption of the trade, despite the Minister's undertakings. Events have shown that those under-takings were practically worthless, because shortly afterwards there was evidence that in France the transport and slaughter of sheep were carried out in the same manner that had revolted people and led to the ban imposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
There is no less strong concern today. Hon. Members and the public want to know the destination of future shipments of store cattle and cattle for immediate slaughter sent abroad. Unless the destination of these animals is known, how can the conditions in which they are transported and slaughtered be questioned? Knowledge of the destination is a guide to hon. Members, animal welfare societies and individuals who wish to follow up the consignment, as they are entitled to do, to make sure that the regulations are carried out.
In Committee the Parliamentary Secretary said:
There are, of course, differing views as to whether we should export livestock for slaughter at all, but it is common ground that if we are to export livestock, we have a duty to ensure, as far as is possible, that they are properly treated."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3rd February 1976; c. 391.]
The Government cannot wriggle out of their responsibility if anything goes wrong by saying "We did what we could as far as possible". The Government are ultimately responsible for what happens to the animals because they allow them to go to places abroad where they may be transported and slaughtered in an inhumane way.
The hon. Gentleman went on:
We do not allowed the export of animals for slaughter to any countries where humane slaughter is not practised."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C,3rd February 1976; c. 392.]
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will now say that we shall not allow the export of animals for slaughter to any country where humane slaughter is not obligatory. We need to know the destination of these animals.
In our debate on 16th January 1975 I referred to the O'Brien Report, which was then only a year old. It was a dis-

quieting report and I shall quote from it again. O'Brien said:
In Italy enervation is permitted provided that it is carried out by trained personnel acting under the authority of the director of the abattoir.
That is slaughter by means of a very sharp, short, three-edged dagger, which is thrust into the base of the animal's skull. It severs the vertebra and destroys the rapport between the nervous system and the legs so that the animal becomes absolutely immobilised but remains fully conscious. Its throat is then cut and it is bled to death. That method of slaughter was being carried out in Italy a year prior to the debate, and the O'Brien Report confirmed that. Is that still the practice in Italy? The Minister has a responsibility to say whether it is. Does he maintain that that is humane slaughter?
9.0 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman said that no animals are exported to countries where there is not humane slaughter consistent with our views, but only yesterday I was told in a Written Reply to my Question
how many store cattle and cattle for slaughter, respectively, have been exported to Italy in each of the years 1971 to 1976 "[Official Report,4th May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 353.]
that in 1972 there was none and in 1973 and 1974 very few. But in 1975, 20,108 store cattle were exported to Italy, all of them for subsequent slaughter. In the period January-March this year 15,362 store cattle were exported to Italy and 14 for immediate slaughter.
We know where they are going. That is a very good reason for "shall" being inserted in the Bill, so that the destination shall be known. Today we can describe the conditions in which we know animals were being slaughtered in Italy until 1974. If the Minister means what he says, he must tell us today that unless he has a firm undertaking from the Italian Government that enervation is not practised, that animals are pre-stunned and there is humane slaughter, the export of cattle to Italy must, on his own undertaking to the Committee, be stopped forthwith.
This is a serious matter, and we are having a serious debate. We are told that the Government intend to introduce


within a year new regulations and orders to give further protection to animals for slaughter. The fact that in the meantime there is a continued insistence upon the destination of the animals being shown on all licences will in no way impede any legislation that the Government may introduce to protect animals exported for slaughter.
I welcome the statement that there is a better understanding between the Ministry of Agriculture and the French Government about the way in which animals shall be treated in France, but things are still far from satisfactory.
It is no good the Minister coming here with pious words and smooth hopes. We want to know tonight that the Government are prepared to accept this small, simple amendment. If they will not, I am sure that they will reap a wind of change towards them from animal lovers who now support them, a wind which, I hope, will cause them a considerable fright.
It is not a satisfactory situation. The Minister made certain observations in Committee and gave undertakings. He must now say that he will reinforce the Bill immediately by inserting the one word "shall", or he will be condemned by the House and the people of this country as someone who does not really care for animals but is more concerned with expediency and what happens in the EEC.

Mr. Buchan: I shall be very brief, despite what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said. I thank him for his words.
I have no intention of following the overall arguments already advanced on this amendment, nor of trying to emulate the passion with which both hon. Members have spoken. I want to deal with the practical problem of trying to get the best from this Report stage of the Bill. I know from sad experience that we are not likely to get the best necessarily by voting against what is in the Bill. Nor do I accept that the attitudes of hon. Members would be as they have been described if the Minister rejected the views expressed.
However, I am surprised on two counts. There are two instances of the word "may"—in page 9, line 12, as well as in

page 9, line 20. In Committee I argued that the Minister should change the first "may" and that the consequence would be to change the second. I was told that "shall" was not necessary in the first place because the Government intended to bring in regulations. In that case there is no reason for not having "shall". I cannot see any Government who wish to bring in regulations objecting to the House of Commons telling them to do so. That change might have been made by the Government in view of the discussion in Committee, and I hope that it can still be considered in another place. The argument for changing the second "may" is that, if we say that it "shall" be done, we should also say that that provision "shall" be included.
The only possible objection would be based on a consideration of whether an exporter could specify the exact destination. It is a genuine difficulty. For agriculture as well as humanitarian reasons, I prefer the carcase trade to the live trade. However, we all annually fill in forms in which we testify that the facts in the forms, to the best of our knowledge, are accurate. It would be no more difficult for an exporter to say that, to the best of his knowledge, what he stated was true.
So if the Government's problem is that they cannot see how the exporter can specify the exact destination because someone might make a switch of trade in Italy or France, they should allow the regulations to provide that this should be stated merely to the best of the exporter's knowledge—or some such form of words. What we are seeking is the maximum information. It is no argument to say that if we cannot get complete and absolutely certain information, we should not bother to seek the maximum we can. We should move forward as far as we can, which is all that human beings can do.
So I hope that the Minister will consider changing the word to "shall" in both places—the first because it is in line with what they propose, and the second because it connotes that the information is the best available to the exporter. I know that this will not satisfy the hon. Members for Gillingham and for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), but they will have to carry their crusade into many other countries before they achieve their goal.
What I suggest would give a great deal of comfort, in two ways. First, none of us can say how the Government could act to refuse a licence unless they have the necessary information. We should compel that information on which the Government make their decision to be given. Secondly, there are many people in this country who want the assurance, not merely as statement of intention, but legislative assurances that what they desire is being understood and fulfilled by this House.

Mr. Burden: Although the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) does not go the whole way with us, surely he would agree that the Government should carry out the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary? Where they know that animals are being treated in a manner which is not acceptable, they should not allow the export of animals to any country where humane slaughter is not practised. That undertaking was given in Committee by the Minister. Surely the hon. Member will go that far with us—that it should be carried out.

Mr. Buchan: I am sure that the Minister will repeat that assurance. We must ensure that the intention of the Government is carried out in legislative terms here. I hope that the Government will look at these points rather than force Conservatives to push the amendment to a vote. I must warn them that if one cannot win a battle before a vote one will not win it in a vote.

Mr. Body: I declare an interest in that over the years I have exported a number of livestock, happily for breeding purposes. I have also been in the carcase trade through a farming co-operative.
I rebut the assertion often made that the farming industry is in favour of this trade. There is a great deal of disquiet among almost all livestock producers about the trade. Those who are trying to breed good quality cattle, sheep and pigs are concerned about this matter.
In my constituency many thousands of cattle pass through the port—perhaps more than through any other port. I repeat the assertion that no cruelty takes place in the port, or on the journey across to Rotterdam. Great efforts are made to rest the cattle and sheep before they travel and conditions on the ship are as satisfactory as they can be. The question is, what

happens beyond Rotterdam? We may pass regulations and change the law, but the policing of these regulations beyond Rotterdam is well-nigh impossible. I hope the whole House has been persuaded by the appalling facts given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) about the terrible way in which many thousands of our cattle have been slaughtered in Italy in the past few months. The picture he painted was a horrible picture.
What we are proposing in this amendment is a modest matter—a question of priorities. When the Parliamentary Secretary replied to a similar debate in Committee he said that the existing arrangements were working satisfactorily. He is not a complacent man but he did seem rather complacent in making that assertion in view of all the evidence we have seen. I do not think anyone could say that the export of these cattle and sheep is satisfactory now. Up to Rotterdam it is all right, but beyond there it gets worse and worse as the journey progresses across France to Italy and perhaps on to North Africa. Therefore, the time has come to pass the most stringent regulations to govern this trade. Nobody would support that more than those who are trying in their way to improve livestock standards in this country.
9.15 p.m.
Therefore all we ask of the Minister is that he should accept the need to insert the word "shall", which means that he must get on immediately with the task of consulting the interests affected. He has undertaken to do that, and he must do so before the regulations are passed. That requires immediate action. I appreciate that he gave an undertaking in the Standing Committee that these regulations would be passed in 12 months. If that is to happen he will have to get on with holding the consultations and drafting the regulations without further delay. In other words, the subject must be at the top of his tray. If he accepts that, as he must, being a humane man, he will, I am sure, accept the amendment.

Mr. Strang: Not surprisingly hon. Members have used this opportunity to go somewhat wider than the amendment and, quite rightly, to draw attention to their deep concern about these matters


and their continued objection in principle to the export of live animals, with the possible exception of breeding animals. If accepted, the amendment would oblige Ministers to include in any Order a provision requiring exporters to furnish information about the transportation arrangements for, and the final destination of, all animals for export without exception, and irrespective of whether this information was considered necessary in order to safeguard the welfare of the animals concerned.
I have every sympathy with the intention of this amendment and the objective that hon. Members believe they will achieve by it. However, substituting "shall" for "may" in subsection (2) of the proposed Section 36B would have the result that, whatever its particular purpose or however limited that purpose might be, every Order made under the section, even an amending Order. would have to contain a provision requiring the furnishing by persons exporting animals of information as to their final destination.
I am not sure what the sponsors of the amendment wish to achieve. The Government included this clause in the Bill primarily to give Ministers specific legal powers to require exporters to disclose the final destination of exported food animals. Let me repeat the assurance I gave in Committee. We shall not allow the export of live food animals unless we can be fully assured that they will be well treated in transit and at their final destination. It follows, therefore, that any Order made under this clause will require exporters of live food animals to declare their final destination. I gave an assurance to this effect in Committee, and I can repeat it now. The clause allows Orders to be made related to any species of animals or birds exported for any purpose. Hon. Members have addressed themselves specifically to live food animals. Although the Government accept the need for very strict controls on exports of live food animals, it is not necessary on welfare grounds to be so restrictive in the case of high-value animals. I have in mind here racehorses and high-value animals intended for breeding or exhibition purposes. The very fact that these animals are so valuable helps to ensure

that they are well treated. A specific example of what I have in mind is the private owner who is taking a horse overseas to jump in various international competitions possibly in several different countries. The effect of the proposed amendment would make it illegal to do that unless the owner could say in advance to which country the animal was finally going.
It is for such reasons that we wish to have the flexibility that "may" instead of "shall" will give to enable us to provide welfare safeguards on the basis of all the relevant considerations relating to the type, standard, condition, and purpose for which animals are to be exported.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know whether this answers the point made by Conservative Members. Surely the owner of the racehorse would be required to provide full details and the Government would then come to a decision. There is no problem about that. The owner would say what he considered to be the animal's ultimate destination, and the Government, or the appropriate authorities, would decide whether they had sufficient information to allow the grant of a licence.

Mr. Strang: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not want to make too much of the racehorse point, but I do not think it would add one whit to the welfare of a racehorse for us to introduce new bureaucracy. We are giving the categorical assurance that we shall require to know the final destinations of all food animals that are exported. That is what I understand hon. Members are concerned about. I accept what my hon. Friend has said.
This may not be an overwhelming argument, but if the Opposition force us to introduce further red tape and bureaucracy as regards racehorses, birds and other animals, we shall be doing nothing further to safeguard the welfare of those animals.
It is natural that Conservative Members should say that they want the Government to be sincere, but if at the end of the day they are suggesting that the Government are not prepared to stand by their assurances, that they do not want to improve animal welfare safeguards, they are flying in the face of all the available evidence.

Sir Bernard Braine: The Minister understands the purpose behind the amendment perfectly well It has nothing to do with racehorses. It is concerned with the fulfilment under the law of an assurance given by Ministers not once but many times that food animals exported from this country for slaughter abroad will be treated humanely in transit and humanely in the slaughterhouse.
If the amendment that I and my hon. Friends have tabled is technically defective because it will somehow catch racehorses or goldfish, we expect the Minister to say" I accept wholeheartedly the spirit in which the amendment has been moved, and I undertake on behalf of the Government that in another place an amendment will be moved to cover the point that has been made." That is what the House wants to hear.

Mr. Strang: I think that the hon. Gentleman is forgetting that this is a measure to give us power to require that exporters of live animals state the final destination of their exports. Bearing in mind what some Conservative Members have said, it might well be thought that we are seeking to open up a loophole. On the contrary, the Government want to have all the legal means that they need to fulfil their assurances. That is why we are seeking to obtain the passage of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman says that this matter has nothing to do with racehorses. I accept that, but surely it is right and proper that I should explain why we cannot accept the amendment. We should get credit for the categorical assurances that we have given. I do not want to embarrass Opposition Front Bench spokesman, but we had a full debate in Committee.
What advantage would there be to the Government by being insincere? The word "sincere" has been repeated many times. Why should the Government want to facilitate the export of live food animals in a way which would subject them to cruelty? I think that hon. Gentlemen will accept, although they have not made the point, that in all the international councils of the world the British Government are a force for increasing standards —for example, in the EEC directive on

humane slaughter, to which I shall come later.

Sir Bernard Braine: I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said about it being the Government's intention to require that the final destination of the animal should be stated. Will he address himself to the question which I put to him? Italy is a member State of the EEC. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) showed that the exports of live food animals to Italy this year will be treble what they were last year. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that within that Community country methods of slaughter are such that he can lay his hand on his heart and say "We shall permit the export of such animals to Italy where that is stated to be the final country of destination"? Can he assure the House categorically that this huge increase in exports does not mean that British cattle are going on from Italy to other destinations? We want to know the facts.

Mr. Strang: I shall address myself specifically to Italy later in my remarks. Perhaps I may complete my remarks on the amendment and then deal with the wider issues.
I understand and appreciate the motives for the amendment. I assure hon. Members that, although in our opinion there is a genuine need for flexibility in the making of Orders relating to the obtaining of information, that will in no way weaken our resolve to ensure that the welfare of all exported animals is adequately safeguarded. We shall not allow animals to go if we are not satisfied that their welfare will be protected. In order to establish that their welfare is protected, we shall insist on all the information necessary for that purpose. That will definitely include the final destination of all live food animals.
I turn now to the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) regarding Italy. There has been an increase in the export of cattle to Italy. That increase is almost totally accounted for by calves which are being exported to Italy to be reared for slaughter.
Turning to the important point made by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), which was repeated by the hon.
Members for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and Essex, South-East, since 1st July stunning by humane slaughter methods has been obligatory in all EEC countries. The Italian Government have confirmed that enervation is no longer used. Almost all the animals sent to Italy in recent months have been calves for further fattening.

Mr. Burden: The Minister said that the vast majority of animals sent to Italy were calves. Will he tell the House how many were calves and how many were store cattle? The figures which I obtained from the Ministry showed that for the period January to March 1976 there were 15,362 designated as store cattle and calves and 14 as cattle for slaughter. The Minister should know how many were calves and how many were cattle.

Mr. Strang: If the hon. Gentleman wants the precise statistics on the age at which an animal ceases to be a calf, I shall be happy to provide them—[Interruption.]—but I cannot, off the cuff, give the number of calves and store cattle exported to Italy.
I want to come to some of the more general points, because there is no argument between us. We want to increase animal welfare. We want to reduce the possibility that any animals whatsoever will suffer in transit.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I have a great interest in the debate. I declare that as a former agricultural auctioneer, and I think that I know a little about the trade. Is the Minister satisfied with the fact that we are sending 15,000 calves all the way to Italy? That is an alarming figure. I should have thought that it was a matter of great concern to the industry as to what happens when they get there, because it is a long distance and we have even been worried about the journeys from Scotland to England. To send calves to Italy seems frightening, and I am wondering whether the Minister is absolutely satisfied about it.

Mr. Strang: I think that the best way to address myself to this question is to say that our policy is based on the O'Brien Report. Everyone knows

the details and the undertakings that we have given. All store and slaughter animals go to countries whose welfare standards are generaly similar to ours. The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Animals in International Transport and the EEC Directive on Humane Slaughter are both there to help safeguard animals in transit and at slaughter-houses. We could go over the old argument and use this debate as a means of rehearsing the precise arguments on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stephen Ross: It is a new trade.

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman says "It is a new trade", but the undertaking we gave was that animals would go only to countries which pursued humane slaughtering standards. Countries within the EEC come into that category.
Hon. Members can exaggerate the danger of re-export. We check up on these things. We are getting good cooperation from the international authorities on these matters. I suspect that one of the reasons for this is that the people in the countries concerned—who, after all, make money out of this trade ; it is a commerce—recognise that if these abuses are not stamped out, the trade will cease. I think that most hon. Members recognise that there are only very isolated instances of real cruelty affecting these animals.

Mr. Pym: The Parliamentary Secretary is being very generous in giving way and is being helpful to the House. I want to put two points to him. In starting his reply, he referred to the red tape that might apply to the export of certain horses. He referred to the requirements and details of destination, and so on, applying to food animals. As he knows, mention of food animals does not appear in the clause, and I wonder whether he would clarify that point, because in referring to racehorses he seemed to imply that the clause would apply to all animals, yet he seemed also to imply that we wanted the clause to apply to food animals only.
Secondly, we are discussing an amendment to leave out the word "may" and to insert "shall". The Parliamentary Secretary argued in favour of leaving the Bill as it is on the grounds of flexibility.
Can he identify accurately the circumstances in which he would use that flexibility and would apply the provisions of this clause, and in which circumstances he would not apply them, because obviously, if the amendment were carried, he would have to do it in every single case? He does not want to do it in every case because he has argued that in some cases that is not necessary or desirable. It would help the House if he could answer on those two aspects.

Mr. Strang: I shall try to answer those points. The point we make is that the clause applies right across the board to animals which can be exported and it is not confined merely to food animals. It also applies to breeding animals. I think that hon. Members have always accepted—certainly the Front Benches have accepted it—that there is no danger of cruelty or adverse treatment of high-valued breeding stock. I see hon. Members nodding their heads in assent. I am grateful to them. All that we are saying is that we think that it is undesirable and unnecessary that we should be required, as we would be if the amendments were accepted, to write in this requirement in every future Order we made under the clause, whether it applied to racehorses—that is only one example I have given—or to breeding animals.

Mr. Burden: Can the Minister give an undertaking that in all cases where food animals for export are involved, the Government will require the destination to be stated?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He has said so.

Mr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). As he has commented from his sedentary position, I said so in Committee and have said so again twice on the Floor of the House. My undertaking applies to all food animals for export.
This has been a useful debate and there is no more pleasing note on which to finish it than with the agreement of the hon. Member for Gillingham who feels very deeply on these matters, and who has mounted a sustained and effective campaign on an issue in which he believes very strongly.
I am pleased that we now agree that it is right and proper that the Govern-

ment should make this requirement in respect of all food animals which are to be exported. I have given the House the assurance yet again. I hope hon. Members will not find it necessary to press the amendment to Division.

Mr. Pym: This has been an important debate on a subject about which many hon. Members are extremely concerned. It went much wider than the amendment might have justified, but that was no surprise. Nor was it unreasonable in view of the concern on this matter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and Gillingham (Mr. Burden) rehearsed the history of this matter, the debates we have had in the House, and some of the incidents which have caused anxiety in all parts of the House. The desire of my hon. Friends to ensure the maximum degree of protection and care for animals while this trade continues is shared on both sides of the House.
The Minister is to be congratulated because Clause 8 is designed to improve the welfare of animals. We must be fair, and I do not think my hon. Friends were altogether fair. If it was not for the desire to improve the welfare of animals the clause would not have been included in the Bill.
However, I wish it had been drafted in a different way. It would have been a help if the clause had said that in all cases where food animals are to be exported the undertaking requirement would be obligatory. We accept that this is what the Government will do, but it might have saved the time of the House and satisfied hon. Members if we had known that the undertaking would be given in respect of all cases.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was right when he said there is no certainty in every case that the destination will be what the exporter thinks it will be. The clause refers to "the intended ultimate destination". Clearly this is an undertaking given by business men with good will on both sides, and in the vast majority of cases, though presumably not in 100 per cent. of cases, what is thought to be the ultimate destination will, in fact, be the ultimate destination, and arrangements


for transport will be supervised as carefully as possible.
The House will have taken some comfort from the fact that proper slaughtering arrangements in the EEC are now obligatory, which was not the case when we debated this matter more than a year ago. One of the anxieties was that the new regulations should apply throughout the Community, and the fact is that they do so apply. The House will take some comfort from that.
I believe that the Government are genuine in bringing forward, of their own volition, a positive new method, and should be given credit for it in view of the great difficulties, but I wish that this provision could have been phrased differently so that its true meaning, and the way it is to be interpreted and handled, was plain for all to see. Everyone would have been happier then. It would be helpful if the Government decided to adjust the provision in that sense when the Bill goes to another place. I do not see why that should not be possible, because the Parliamentary Secretary has said what many hon. Members wish to hear. On that basis, and in the knowledge that the Government are no less anxious than others to help the welfare of animals, I hope that they will consider adjusting the clause in another place. But I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance can be accepted now.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that our veterinary officers have an important part to play in the export trade, and are in attendance at virtually every stage of the journey, including the ultimate call—the abattoir on the other side of the North Sea or the English Channel—and are hardly likely to allow ill-treatment to occur? Is that not a further guarantee of the treatment and welfare of animals being exported?

Mr. Pym: Yes, I think my hon. Friend is right. It is a further guarantee, but I hazard the opinion that unless and until we have had a run of several years, when everything from the point of view of animal welfare has worked as we want it to, there will still be anxiety. If these regulations and controls can be demonstrated over a period to be work-

ing as we want them to, we can say "Yes, the vets have played their part, the system is working and we are satisfied with it." I think that Clause 8 is intended to be a further strengthening of the structure to protect the welfare of animals.

Sir Bernard Braine: With the permission of the House, I would like to say that I have listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary, and in large measure he has disappointed me.
I did not understand the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It has always been my understanding that the honourable veterinary profession of this country disliked very much the export of live food animals for slaughter abroad. I still persist in my view that common sense, logic and humanity, as well as economic advanage, will require in the end that this traffic cease altogether and that we export carcase meat only.
I understand the technical difficulty which the Parliamentary Secretary put to us. I have been a Minister. We all know that often an amendment is put down that would be technically difficult to implement. The hon. Gentleman explained that, but I was astonished that, having made the point, he did not go on to say that the Government fully understood the motives behind the amendment and that these were in line with their own feelings. It is not our fault that the Bill is drafted as it is and, therefore, does not permit our intentions to be assimilated into it easily. We have advanced our anxieties and concern, which the Minister says he shares, but the hon. Gentleman did not say a word about the possibility, at a later stage in the Bill—we are not at the end of proceedings on the Bill, after all—

Mr. Burden: Wring it out of him.

9.45 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: We have to do that. If we want any assurance about the welfare of animals in this traffic, it has to be wrung out of Ministers. That is why I speak with such feeling.
My amendment is clearly seen by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House as logical and sensible. We have a situation already


where exporters are required to provide certain information about ultimate destinations. Why not write that requirement into the statute?
We were expecting the Minister to say, "This amendment makes for technical difficulties, but we give the House the undertaking that the assurances that we ourselves have been giving all along will be implemented in statutory form when the Bill reaches another place." That is all that we were asking from the Minister. I still hope that he will say that "The Government share the anxieties of hon. Members on both sides, and we therefore undertake to look at the possibility in another place of amending the clause to ensure that there shall be no misunderstanding about the Government's intention to see to it that licences for the export of British food animals for slaughter abroad will be given only in circumstances where we are completely satisfied that the conditions of transport and slaughter will be humane and civilised." Even at this eleventh hour, I beg the Minister to give the House that assurance.

Mr. Strang: I made it clear that it was the Government's intention that licensing the export of food animals should be carried out on the basis of their destinations having been conveyed in advance to the Ministry, but I am happy to undertake to see whether it is possible to alter the wording of the Bill to make that mandatory upon the Government. I cannot give any undertaking about the outcome, but I give that assurance.

Sir Bernard Braine: The Minister has been very reasonable. I accept what he says—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to address the House or to withdraw his amendment?

Sir Bernard Braine: I was seeking, Mr. Speaker, to ask you whether, in view of the assurance now given, I might withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

POWERS OF ENTRY ETC. IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION 9

Mr. Bishop: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 12, line 18, after 'investigations', insert 'which he considers necessary'.
Clause 10 deals with powers of entry in connection with Clause 9 which deals with the power to provide for the destruction of wild life in cases of disease, and so forth.
This is a drafting amendment designed to clarify that only investigations considered necessary for the purpose of determining whether an order should be made are carried out. It is similar to an amendment moved in Committee by the Opposition and which we agreed to consider between the Committee and Report.
In Committee the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) sought some assurances, which were given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to look into the matter again. This amendment is designed to make it clear that the investigations to be carried out under Clause 10(2)(b) are restricted solely to those which an authorised officer considers necessary to determine whether an order under Clause 9 should be made.
Since the amendment is the result of the consideration given to the matter following my hon. Friend's undertaking in Committee, I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Jopling: It is a pleasure to respond to the amendment which the Minister of State has moved. As he says, the amendment which the Government have proposed follows the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) moved, as reported in column 510 of our Committee proceedings on 10th February. It is perhaps a lesson for all of us to note that the debate on that amendment took less than two columns in Hansardbut it has met with a happy result as the Government's amendment entirely meets the point which my hon. Friend raised.
The only point I would make about it is that both my hon. Friend and the Minister described the amendment as "drafting". It is slightly more than that because, as the Minister knows, the


Opposition had some reservations about the impact of Clause 10 where an authorised officer of the Minister was allowed to enter on land where he merely suspected that there might be animals which were passing on disease. We debated this at some length in Committee and I do not propose to go any further tonight. However, I believe that to add these words means that an authorised officer must, in his mind, consider these investigations to be necessary—that is what the amendment says—and if there were an argument about it afterwards, the authorised officer of the Minister must be answerable for his actions. That will mean that an authorised officer, where he merely suspected there might be wild life passing on diseases which concern us all, would have to be careful in his own mind in order to justify his actions rather more than if we left the Bill as it is.
The Opposition welcome the Government's amendment and hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN ENGLAND AND WALES; POWER TO ENABLE NOTICES TO DO WORK TO BE MODIFIED ON ARBITRATION.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 9, at end insert
'where, having regard to the purpose which that item or part is intended to achieve, the arbitrator is satisfied that the last-mentioned method or material would involve undue difficulty or expense, that the first-mentioned method or material would be substantially as effective for that purpose, and that in all the circumstances the substitution is justified.".'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also discuss Amendment No. 18, in page 16, line 27, at end insert
'where, having regard to the purpose which that item or part is intended to achieve, the arbiter is satisfied that the last-mentioned method or material would involve undue difficulty or expense, that the first-mentioned method of material would be substantially as effective for that purpose, and that in all the circumstances the substitution is justified.

Mr. Strang: We are introducing this amendment to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) during the debate in Com-

mittee on Amendment No. 60 that criteria should be provided for the guidance of the arbitrator when exercising his powers under sub-paragraph (ii). The amendment, which the hon. Member had tabled, was unsuitable for reasons which I explained at the time but, nevertheless, had sympathy with his view that the arbitrators' tasks would be made easier if they knew the parameters within which they have to arbitrate. We have looked at the matter again, in consultation with the Country Landowners' Association and the NFU, and have reached agreement on what we believe to be suitable criteria.
Before substituting a different method, or material, from those set out in the notice to do work the arbitrator will have to be satisfied on each, and all, of three counts. First, that the specified method, or materials, would involve undue difficulty or expense for the tenant. Second, that the method, or material, to be substituted would be substantially as effective for the purpose as the original one and, finally, that in all the circumstances the substitution is justified.
I hope that this formula will be acceptable to hon. Members. It has an added advantage in regard to the difficulties which the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) envisaged would arise if the arbitrator's modification of a notice clashed with planning requirements, in a national park, for example. Apart from limiting the circumstances generally in which the arbitrator's power is to be used, the formula requires the substitution to be justified in all circumstances. I do not consider that a substitution would be justified if it involved either an actual, or a potential, conflict with the planning legislation.
Amendment No. 18 seeks simply to provide for similar provisions in the Scottish legislation.

Mr. Wiggin: I have seen the letter to which the Minister referred and I accept the point which has been made. The matter was well worth raising in the context of the national parks, and I consider that the Government have dealt with the point adequately. It would be ungenerous not to thank the Minister for taking account of this delicate point.
These provisions involve consideration whether Parliament should seek to dictate


to an arbitrator. There were some difference of view in Committee about how far we should try in legislation to specify the circumstances of substitute materials. The same point applies to Clause 13 and its relationship to Scotland. To those who are not as in favour of devolution as are others, it might be noted that for the word "arbitrator" has been substituted the word "arbiter". Therefore, it might appear that the two sides of the border have more in common than some people think.
We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted our suggestion, and we only wish that they had taken on board some other matters which are as important as, if not more important than, this proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN SCOTLAND: POWER TO ENABLE DEMAND TO REMEDY A BREACH TO BE MODIFIED ON ARBITRATION

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 16, line 27, at end insert:

'where, having regard to the purpose which that item or part is intended to achieve, the arbiter is satisfied that the last-mentioned method or material would involve undue difficulty or expense, that the first-mentioned method or material would be substantially as effective for that purpose, and that in all the circumstances the substitution is justified'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Clause 17

APPLICATION OF FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF PART II

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 20, line 18, at end insert:
'who worked in a farming partnership on the holding, with the deceased'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we we shall also take Amendment No. 22, in page 20, line 23, at end insert:
'who worked in a farming partnership on the the holding. with the deceased'.

Mr. Jopling: We now move to Part II of the Bill which deals with those clauses tabled by the Government in Committee dealing with agricultural holdings and the provision for succession on the death of

the tenant. In Committee there were long and thorough debates on various aspects of Part II. Clause 17 provided the guts of these provisions, and this amendment seeks to deal with the early provisions of that clause.
Subsection (1) deals with the different relations who are survivors of a deceased tenant. It envisages people who have the right to apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for the purpose of inheritance of the tenancy. There was no argument in Committee about the categories laid down in paragraphs (a)and (c). Those paragraphs relate to the wife or husband of a deceased tenant, and to a child of the deceased. An adopted child comes within paragraph (c) as a child of the deceased tenant. Regardless of the legal position, I am sure it is right that an adopted child should be treated in every way as a child of the deceased.
We were unhappy about the provision in Clause 17 which allowed the brother or sister of the deceased on the one hand and a treated child on the other hand to inherit the tenancy. We had many debates in Committee—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Jopling: We were defeated in our attempt to omit from the Bill the provision that the brother, sister or the treated child of the deceased tenant could inherit the tenancy. The Government made out the case that these two categories should be included. I do not wish to go over all the arguments, but I still think that it is basically wrong that, for example, a land girl who worked on the farm during the war when she was a minor and has lived with the family and worked on the farm until now should be classified as a treated child, but I accept the Committee's decision and hope that the alternative amendment will commend itself to the Government and the House.
The case was put to us by Ministers that if we removed the provision which


allowed the brother, sister or treated child to inherit, hardship might be caused if they were partners in a farming business and, in view of the objections which were put to our case, we thought it better to try to rationalise their position. We accept the Committee's decision that the brother, sister or the treated child should be allowed to apply to inherit the tenancy but we say that that should occur only if they were working in a farming partnership on the holding with the deceased tenant. The argument was repeatedly put to us that these people should not be excluded because they could be working in partnership with the deceased tenant. The amendment seeks to secure that these more distant relatives can qualify only when they have a business interest in the holding.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) took a great interest in this matter in Committee, and I hope that he and his hon. Friends will see the strength of our argument. We accept the decision over categories (b) and (d) and I hope the hon. Member for Cardigan and his hon. Friends will support us if we have to press the matter to a Division. I hope that we shall not have to do that and that the Government will accept our amendments, because they represent a reasonable effort to compromise in a difficult situation.
It is right that these people should have a more tenuous right to inherit the tenancy than a spouse or child, and that they should have to put up a stronger case to prove that they have an interest in the business. If any hon. Member opposes that view I hope that he will explain what hardships are likely to arise to those people who are not in partnership and are not involved in the business. Little hardship will arise for such people by excluding them from the right to be applicants for the tenancy.
I believe that my case is fair. During debates on Government amendments Ministers have made a distinction between categories (a) and (c). That shows that the Government wish to distinguish between close relatives under those categories and more distant relatives under categories (b) and (d). It is, therefore, logical to say that more distant relatives should have to make a slightly stronger claim, and that only if they can

prove that they have interest in the business should they be allowed to apply for the tenancy.

Mr. Bishop: The purpose of the amendment is to add a condition to the definition of the eligible person in Clause 17(1)(b). The effect of the amendment would be that a brother or sister of a deceased tenant would be excluded from the designated categories of close relatives unless he or she had worked in close partnership on the holding of the deceased. To find a brother and sister working together on the family farm is common. Hardship could occur if, on the death of the one who was the tenant the landlord was unwilling to grant the tenancy to the surviving brother or sister. That is what the Bill is about—succession and hardship. It could apply in cases other than father and son, and that is why we included the brother and sister in the scheme. The amendment would require that the brother or sister should also have worked in farming partnership on the holding of the deceased. That introduces an unnecessary and undesirable legal complication.
Under the Bill the brother or sister, like other relatives, will have to satisfy tests as to their eligibility and suitability, so it is not an automatic situation. It would be inappropriate for him or her to have to meet such further conditions.
The purpose of amendment No. 22 is to add a condition to the definition of eligible persons in paragraph (d). The effect would be that a treated child of the tenant would be excluded from the designated categories unless he or she worked in farming partnership on the holding of the deceased.
This category of close relatives follows a similar provision in the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. A treated child can include a stepchild, foster child or a child taken in without formal adoption, provided the child was treated by the deceased for any length of time as a child of the family in relation to any marriage of the deceased. The treated child's position is like that of a son or daughter. The amendment, which requires that the treated child should have worked in farming partnership on the holding with the deceased, introduces an unnecessary and undesirable legal complication and restriction.
The treated child, like other close relatives in the designated categories, will also have to satisfy other tests as to his eligibility and suitability to become the tenant of the holding. This is desirable. The process of checking eligibility must be gone through just the same.
The whole of this part of the Bill is about succession and hardship. We believe that the categories designated in the clause include people who normally without any legislation, often have some consideration in the succession to the tenancy. We believe that all these categories can suffer hardship.
The amendment, which would limit the range of people to continue as tenants, would increase the hardship which the clause seeks to reduce or eliminate. There-fore, I cannot recommend that the House should accept the amendment. It goes against the spirit of what we have tried to do in introducing this legislation.

Mr. Jopling: I am deeply disappointed by the Minister's reply, which has shown no sympathy for our reasonable attitude on this matter in previous debates in Committee and again tonight. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman

should resort to the nebulous matter of hardship. I asked him to say what hard-ship would result in the event of people in categories (b) and (d) having to show that they were within the farming partner-ship. Apart from saying that there might be hardship, the Minister has not been specific.

In debates in Committee, when we raised the question of hardship, the Government said that it had nothing to do with the considerations. They sought to vote down our amendments which dealt particularly with the hardship point. We shall remember what the Minister has just said when we come to later amendments concerned with hardship.

The Government are playing fast and loose with us, using the matter of hard-ship only when it suits them. When we raise it, they pooh-pooh it. In view of the Minister's most disappointing reply to this reasonable amendment I have no alternative but to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 106.

Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lambie, David
Selby, Harry


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt. Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Flannery, Martin
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Freeson, Reginald
Marks Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Freud, Clement
Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Milian, Bruce
Stoddart, David


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Strang, Gavin


Gourlay, Harry
Molloy, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Graham, Ted
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tinn, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
O'Halloran, Michael
Ward, Michael


Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, James (Pollok)


Hooson, Emyln
Pavitt, Laurie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Woodall, Alec


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Penhaligon, David
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. A. W. Stallard.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 20, line 32 after '19', insert
'or (Application by not fully eligible person to be treated as eligible)'.

No. 24, in page 21, line 3 at end insert
'and without prejudice to section (Application by not fully eligible person to be treated as eligible) of this Act'.—[Mr. Strang.]

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 21, line 13 after 'holding', insert
'or on an agricultural unit of which the holding forms part'.
The need for the amendment was drawn to our attention by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. As previously drafted a difficulty might arise in the application of the principal source of livelihood test in Clause 17 3(b) where the deceased tenant's holding comprised areas of land tenanted from different land-lords. This entails separate applications to the Agricultural Land Tribunal in respect of each area.
There is a possibility, to put it no stronger, that owners of the smaller areas of land might successfully object to the eligibility of applicants by claiming that the applicants could not possibly have derived their principal source of livelihood from their particular land. The test is, of course, intended to apply to the complete holding. It is important to clarify this point because a considerable number of holdings are known to be in multiple ownership or to be part-owned and part-

rented. We are grateful to the RICS for bringing this matter to our notice and I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is desirable that the amendment, which is self-explanatory, should be made.

Mr. Jopling: We have no objection to the amendment. I say only that I wish that in Committee the Government had paid a good deal more attention to the views of the RIGS. If they had, this would have been a far better Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment ment No. 26, in page 21, line 17, at end insert—
'"the relevant period" means—

(a) except where the following paragraph applies, the period of three months beginning with the day after the date of death;
(b) if the deceased died between the passing of this Act and the end of 1976, the period of three months beginning with 1st January 1977 or with such later date as may be prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph by order under section 73(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947 (procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals);'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With it we may also take Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.

Mr. Strang: These are drafting amendments. The definition of "relevant period" for making application to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for the tenancy of the holding is at present contained in Clause 18(2) because the "relevant period" appears only in Clause 18 and


Clause 19 immediately following. Now that the term relevant period "also appears in the new clause it becomes more appropriate to place it in Clause 17(3) along with the other general definitions relating to Part II. This definition therefore is placed in Clause 17 by Amendment No. 26 and removed from its present position by Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 42 is a consequential amendment.

Mr. Jopling: Although we are unhappy with the new clause we agree absolutely that it is a good idea to put all the definitions in the same clause, and therefore we are perfectly happy with the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 26, after 'his', insert 'agricultural'.
This is a drafting amendment which has become necessary following an amendment agreed to in Committee. That amendment, for which we are indebted to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), tightened up the definition of "eligible person" in subsection (3)(b) so as to make it clear that the applicant's

work on the holding had to be agricultural work. In consequence the applicant's period of formal education which, by virtue of subsection (4) may count as the equivalent of work on the holding, must also be equated with agricultural work.

Mr. Jopling: We are grateful to the Government for picking up an amendment which became necessary following an amendment which we moved in Committee. In fact, it was the only amendment of ours which the Government, in their charity, were able to accept throughout our proceedings in Committee. We were then thankful for small mercies, but we are sorry that we were not sufficiently vigilant to realise that we should have moved the same amendment at a different stage. We are grateful to the Government for spotting the need for this amendment and for putting our earlier amendment in order.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

MENTALLY SICK AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

10.32 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I am especially grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the community care of the mentally sick and handicapped. It is a very special issue, and it is only the second time this year that we have debated mental health and the mentally handicapped. Indeed, it is only the second time that we have done so for the two years and more that I have been a Member.
This debate comes at the commencement of the MIND campaign, whose slogan is
Help a healthy mind leave hospital".
At the outset I must declare an interest. I am a member of the MIND General Council. For some years I have had a close interest in the problems of the mentally handicapped and in mental health. Many people have asked why I should try to deal with both the mentally ill and the handicapped in the one debate. I do so because I am concentrating on the community care aspect, which allows them to go back to the community to live as normal a life as possible in view of their previous history.
There are about 50,000 mentally handicapped still in hospital, and the Government estimate that between one-third and one-half of them need not be in hospital but could live in the community with support. The most terrifying figure of all is that about 6,000 mentally handicapped out of the 50,000 are children who could most certainly live in the community to a greater extent than is presently possible if there were additional aids.
The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that I am interested in supporting the payment of the attendance allowance to foster parents who are prepared to take mentally handicapped children into their homes. I was delighted by the chink of light which appeared last week in the Chamber when the Government said that

they are actively considering the 300 mentally handicapped children who are looked after by foster parents. I hope that that chink of light will soon be the beam of the full attendance allowance for those foster parents.
There are some 600,000 people receiving psychiatric help every year. We know that by the time they are 45–50 years of age, one in six women and one in nine men will have benefited from some psychiatric help. A large and increasing number seem to be needing longer care and greater support back in the community. Over 70,000 have spent more than two years in a mental illness hospital, and 32,000 have spent at least 20 years in such hospitals, often in large units of 1,000 beds or more. Comparing all these figures, I must ask, why is it that many of these people remain?
During the last year I have spent some time looking round the mental hospitals in the North-West. I found that many people—including a former constituent of my predecessor—are there because they have no homes to go to and none can be provided. Having found the first case, one then finds an increasing number of people who have no need of psychiatric hospital care but just need a home and support within the community.
A comparison of our spending in 1973–74 of £300 million on hospital care of the mentally ill against £15 million on personal social services and £6·5 million on day care tells us that our priorities seem to be in the wrong direction.
In 1960 the then Conservative Government made a firm commitment to bring back into the community people who no longer needed institutional care. In 1971 we had a Command Paper about the care of the mentally handicapped. In 1975 we had another Command Paper on better services for the mentally ill. But all this time there has been minute progress in selected areas towards giving these people the chance to start to re-live life, which is what we are talking about.
We have made great advances. Nobody denies that 1½ million out-patients per annum and 2 million attendances per annum at day psychiatric centres is an advance. But we have a problem. The


growing number of psychiatric nurses is only in certain areas. People are not encouraged in their nursing careers to go into psychiatric nursing in anything like the numbers that we need, particularly when we consider the community psychiatric nursing sphere.
The second reason for tackling these two areas together is that the community support required for someone who has been in an institution does not differ immensely between the handicapped and the ill. There are great similarities. The main requirement is to relieve the relations or the family with whom the person becoming rehabilitated is now living, to give personal support, and to help to create the one-to-one relationships from which that person has been severed for so long.
We know the money situation only too well. It is not for me to call for further Government expenditure, but I call for a reallocation of finances. I particularly welcome the consultative paper on joint financing. I have only one fear. If anything, it is a bit tentative.
I look forward to seeing how the Under-Secretary of State, with his right hon. Friend, will impress not only on area health authorities but also on local authorities the importance of being able to utilise buildings which are no longer needed in the hospital service for the community service and how funds currently allocated for the hospital service can be better deployed in providing greater community support for those who should have the right and chance to live at home.
In this context I should like to place a few figures before the House. The cost of hospital places in psychiatric care, on the estimates which I have been able to achieve, is now upwards of £46 per week, without including the drug therapy cost. The cost of hostel accommodation. by comparison, ranges between approximately £25 and £30 per week—again, without the drug cost. The cost of accommodation in small group homes, which a few local authorities have already begun, ranges between £15 and £20 per week.
I am concerned that we should be cost effective in our deployment of the mini-

mal resources which we have at present. But I must remind the House that the proportion of expenditure on the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill will have to increase in the community sector. We have been decreasing capital expenditure in the National Health Service field at a time when revenue in the community sector actually requires to be increased. It is that sort of deliberation that is not spelled out clearly enough in our paper on joint financing, which is coming before local authorities, community health councils and area health authorities at present.
We have some very severe problems on both handicap and mental illness, and it is to deal with these that we have to adjust the financial resources. I mention but one in the mentally handicapped field to which I seriously ask the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the Department of Employment and other relevant Departments to turn their attention. What happens to a mentally handicapped person at the age of 16 when he has received a special education and is suddenly plunged back on to the resources of the family alone? He may not get an adult training centre place, because many of these people suffer from double incontinance—and we are still not coping with that problem well enough. Therefore, suddenly, after 11 years of special schooling, the family is forced to cope with an adult who has had little training, who has little chance of even sheltered workshop occupation and who does not know what to do with his time, whom the family are desperate to help but do not know how to help. It is in this regard that support services for the mentally handicapped are perhaps the most pressing need.
I commend to the Under-Secretary the sort of schemes—perhaps he will take them up with his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment—that are operating in other countries, such as Holland and Germany. In Holland there are sheltered workshops alongside factories. Philips is one example. Colour television components are made in sheltered workshops by mentally handicapped persons for assembly on the Philips television production line. This works very well. There are small beginnings in this country. Firms such as Belling and Lee, in Enfield, have sheltered workshops.
However, I have been able to find only three examples in the United Kingdom.
I turn from the mentally handicapped to the mentally ill. I remind the House of some relevant figures. Of the 180,000 who leave hospital each year, some are short-stay patients. However, the transfer back into the community is beset with problems—as we have seen with various Press exposes in Birmingham, Margate and other places; and they have not yet all come to light, by many means, and we know greater problems. We have a problem because there is a willingness in the mental health field to discharge patients back into the community, but the difficulty is that support services from the local authority are not there, or if they are there for the first week, they do not continue beyond that first week.
Frankly, I feel that it is necessary to say to consultants "Unless you are satisfied that there will be adequate community support, you are doing a disservice by discharge at this time to that particular patient." It is a hard thing to say because many patients are well and truly ready to come back into the community, but to leave them, as some men and women are often left, in both city centres and coastal resorts is more cruel than to keep them for a few more months in our hospitals.
The last thing we want to encourage is the revolving door syndrome. The best way to avoid people having to go in and out of hospital—and two-thirds of admissions to all mental illness hospitals are re-admissions; only one-third are first-time admissions—is to ensure that grants to excellent organisations such as the Richmond Fellowship, and some of the others working to give support to and put a roof over the heads of ex-mental patients, are not cut by local authorities. I do not know the best way of doing that. It is certainly something that I am examining, but I do not have the resources of the Civil Service behind me to help me to do it. I hope that the Government are already examining how we can make the best use of the 120 social clubs that MIND and local health organisations run, and the 20 day centres, too, and how we support the Richmond Fellowship which provides many of the hostel places for the mentally sick. There are only 45,000 hostel places in England and Wales and about 35 per cent. of them are provided by voluntary organisations. Yet, be-

cause of our other problems, it is the grants to these organisations which are the easiest to cut.
There are many organisations in this field deserving of the highest praise. I call them the sharp end charities. Groups such as CHAR, SHAC, SHARP in Liverpool and the Cyrenians do excellent work, but they cannot do it all. They seek to share the problems of the mental patients, to give them guidance, to teach them to mix with other people and to look after themselves.
A local authority in my constituency has turned what used to be an ordinary hostel, which fed, clothed and looked after patients, into a rehabilitation hostel. The lady who runs it teaches mental patients to cook, clean, shop and sew and the ladies to do their hair. In short, she teaches them to live again.
This is the sort of small project which I want the Government and local authorities to encourage on a far wider scale. We can make a start in preparing patients for discharge into the community by making their nurses into teachers, friends and counsellors. When they move to the first stage of a discharge—for example, a hostel—they will learn far more quickly how to cope with the rigours of everyday life.
We must try to persuade local authorities to provide more homes where four or five patients can live together and form their own family group with support from local organisations for mental health and from social service departments.
It would be wrong for me to go on for too long. I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) to say a few words and for the Minister to reply.
Above all, I suggest that the Minister must know that many false economies are being made and that grants are being cut to organisations which are doing productive work. Let the Minister look very carefully at the situation so that we may make the MIND campaign of bringing a healthy mind home from hospital more than just a catch phrase. Let us make it a reality. It will take determination and purpose to do so, but I am convinced that we can do it by pulling together. I hope that, with the joint


financing document and good will on all sides, this can be done in the next five years.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) on her choice of subject for this debate, thank her for allowing me to intervene and congratulate her on an excellent speech.
I shall be brief because I want to leave the Minister time to reply. The biggest job we all have is to persuade local authorities that the provision of places for the mentally handicapped i. not an option but a necessity.
We know that the Minister is not responsible for housing and that he will have to work through hundreds of local authorities. Housing is the key shortage. There is a desperate shortage of buildings into which patients can be discharged and roofs under which they can live after leaving hospital. Our biggest task is to persuade local authorities to face up to the scale of the problem and to their responsibilities.
I should like to say a great deal more, but I must allow the Minister to reply.

10.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I welcome this opportunity to discuss our plans for the development of services for the care of the mentally handicapped and mentally ill outside hospital, and I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) for raising the matter. I found her speech and that of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) in the debate in January very interesting. I have read them in the Official Report, as I was not present because I was then working in another Department.
The Government's long-term strategy and their commitment to increasing community services in this area is already well known. It was stated in detail in the two White Papers to which the hon. Lady referred, published in 1971 and last year. Both make clear that in our view mentally handicapped and mentally ill people should be cared for as far as is practicable within the community, that

when hospital treatment is needed it should be available locally, near the patient's home and family, and that people should not have to remain in hospital if they do not need the medical and nursing care provided there but should be encouraged to return to as normal a life as possible outside in the community.
I say "our view" advisedly. This is not a party matter. The former White Paper was published by a Conservative Government and the latter by a Labour Government, and both had been set in train by previous Governments.
But, as my colleagues have emphasised again and again, discharge policy must be realistic and must take account of the availability of facilities outside hospital for the continuing care and support of the patient. This is particularly important for people who have spent a long period, even many years, in hospital, who are likely to need some help in adjusting to life outside at least for a short time after discharge and in some cases—both with the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped—for an indefinite period.
We have made it clear that although it is primarily for the responsible consultant to determine when a patient is ready to leave hospital, good practice requires that before any patient is discharged the consultant should satisfy himself that there are adequate support facilities—this does not just mean a place to stay—outside the hospital.
The two White Papers spell out in some detail the range of services that will be needed if this pattern of community-based care is to become a practical reality. Residential accommodation, domiciliary services, day care and training, employment rehabilitation services, sheltered employment and social work support all need to be developed.
At the moment it has to be admitted that we have a long way to go, and community services, for the mentally ill in particular, are far short of what is estimated to be required. As recently as March 1975, for example, nine local authorities in England had no residential accommodation and 27 no day care facilities for the mentally ill. As a result it must be confessed that there are still considerable numbers of people in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals


who do not need hospital in-patient care and treatment but who had little alternative but to stay there because there are no facilities for their accommodation and continuing support outside.
Even in favourable economic circumstances there is so much to be done that it would take many years of effort to build up community services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped to the level that is needed. Given the present financial situation and the restrictions of local authority spending, we must face the fact that progress is bound to be more difficult. The rate at which progress can be made will depend not only on the overall level of resources that can be made available but on the degree of priority that can be given to the development of services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped in the light of other pressing needs.

Mrs Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deakins: I shall not be able to answer all the points raised if I do not continue. I much regret not being able to give way.
The consultative document, published in March this year, attempted to establish rational and systematic priorities throughout the health and social services for the next few years up to 1980. In it we made clear that in our view services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, should be regarded as a major priority and suggested an increased allocation of both current and capital expenditure towards meeting the needs of these groups so that progress can be made.
The consultative document lays particular emphasis on the need to shift the balance of expenditure between hospital and community and to develop community services, both for day care and residential accommodation. For the mentally ill it proposes increased local authority capital expenditure totalling £7 million a year—£4 million on day centres and £3 million for residential care. In the mental handicap field we have been able to suggest an allocation which will mean the local authority capital development programme envisaged by "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" being maintained with an additional 2,400 adult training centre and 1,000 residential places being provided annually.
The document also emphasises the importance of making the most of existing resources by concentrating on relatively inexpensive, though nevertheless effective, solutions such as using adapted rather than expensive purpose-built premises, boarding out and supervised lodgings schemes, group homes and other kinds of sheltered accommodation and the use of voluntary effort, particularly in befriending and support schemes, to supplement the hard pressed statutory services.
There are already a number of examples of schemes, in this country and elsewhere, which illustrate how successful this kind of approach can be if handled in the right way, with the full co-operation of the health and social services. One such successful and lone-established scheme has been in operation in some form for several hundred years in the town of Geel in Belgium, where a large-scale fostering or boarding-out scheme, with supporting day care and social work facilities, enables large numbers of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people to live in private households as members of the family. Attempts to establish similar schemes on a smaller scale, in this country, have also been successful, one recent example being a project in Salisbury which enabled over 100 patients who had been in hospital for many years to be discharged to private homes.
Group homes, where five or six people can live together as a family, organising their own finances and household chores, with no residential staff, and only occasional visits from a social worker or voluntary worker, have also been developed most successfully, by local authorities and by voluntary organisations, to provide accommodation for people who have been in hospital for some years and who cannot manage to live entirely on their own. I am thinking, for example, of the scheme established in Dorset for patients from Herrison Hospital, of MIND's many group homes and of those set up in the Midlands under the auspices of the Guideposts Trust. These are examples in the mental illness field, but similar initiatives have taken place in respect of mental handicap.
I have already mentioned the valuable part that voluntary organisations can play


in the care of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. This is fully recognised in the White Papers and the consultative document on priorities. MIND's "Home from Hospital" scheme is an excellent example of the approach that we have been urging. The campaign will aim to make full use of MIND's extensive network of local groups to set up group homes, befriending schemes, boarding-out arrangements and day care and social club facilities to help some of the large number of people at present in mental illness hospitals to return to the community. My Department has made a grant of £20,000 to help launch this scheme and I am confident that it will make a considerable impact on the present severe shortage of community facilities, especially for the mentally ill.
For this, and similar schemes, to be successful it will be essential that there should be full collaboration with all concerned, and I was particularly pleased to see that MIND has laid considerable emphasis on this aspect of its campaign.
However, if we are to see real improvement in the level of services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped we must not rely entirely on voluntary effort, valuable as this is. Joint planning and collaboration between health authorities and local authorities will be of crucial importance and is an aspect which we have repeatedly emphasised. We have just issued a consultative circular outlining for local authority and health interests our proposals for joint planning and for the joint financing of agreed projects which both the health and local authorities regard as of high priority. Of course, this arrangement cannot be expected to solve all the problems which have arisen as a result of the acute shortage of community facilities, but we hope that it will at least go some way towards providing more much needed care and support for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
Finally, I should like to say a brief word about the provision of adult training centres for mentally handicapped people. This is a subject about which there has been a great deal of current

interest, as the hon. Lady mentioned in her speech.
This afternoon an all-party meeting of Members of Parliament, parents, and representatives of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children has been discussing the provision made for education and training of mentally handicapped young people over 16 years of age.
Most mentally handicapped children leaving special schools who live at home and are unable to enter open or sheltered employment go to adult training centres. In recent years the number of these centres has grown rapidly and nationally the target levels set in the White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" are close to being met. National figures hide local deficiencies, and I am aware that the demand for special facilities for the severely mentally handicapped, who are probably physically handicapped as well or have severe behaviour disorders, is not being met. This is unfortunate, but it is for local authorities to decide their own priorities in their programme for development of their personal social services, although my Department does what it can to influence their selections.
In the past adult training centres gave perhaps undue emphasis to the work and occupation element of their task, but this emphasis is rapidly being changed, with education and social training assuming a much greater importance. Not all 16-year-olds transfer to the ATCs since some local education authorities allow them to remain at school after this age if there are useful educational reasons for them to do so, and provided places are available. For those who do not stay on some authorities arrange courses at further and adult education colleges.
These are problems which are well known, and it is one of the priority tasks of the National Development Group for the Mentally Handicapped which has been set up to advise on the development and implementation of policy to examine them.
The provision of sheltered employment is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for


Employment, but I know that he wishes to promote sheltered employment where-ever there is adequate evidence of sufficient need. These workshops are run under similar disciplines and conditions as those found in open industry and cater for all kinds of handicapped people, including mentally handicapped and mentally ill people. The work undertaken by trainees in adult training centres does not usually compare with the consistently high standard demanded in open and sheltered employment, but the National Development Group is also considering

whether some intermediate provision is necessary.
I hope that these remarks will satisfy the hon. Lady that the Government are very much aware of the need to develop community services for both mentally ill and mentally handicapped people—and not only aware, but actively seeking to bring the necessary improvement about just as fast as we reasonably can. I can assure her that we intend to succeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.